Export thread
Arizona Passes Law that Allows Discrimination
#1
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
http://www.bilerico.com/2014/02/breaking_az_senate_passes_right_to_discriminate_bi.php
Okay, I'm dropping a rare F-bomb for this one:
What the FUCK, Arizona?
Okay, I'm dropping a rare F-bomb for this one:
What the FUCK, Arizona?
This afternoon, on a party-line 17-13 vote, Republicans in the Arizona Senate bucked the national trend and gave final approval to SB 1062, a GOP-led bill that would create a special "right" to discriminate against LGBT people on the basis of religion.
Under the bill, which was introduced by Republican State Senator Steve Yarbrough, individuals and businesses would be granted the legal right to refuse services to people or groups if they claimed that doing so would "substantially burden" their freedom of religion.
In interviews with local media, Yarbrough made it perfectly clear that the specific purpose of this bill is to legitimize discrimination against the LGBT community. But during today's nearly two-hour-long debate, Yarbrough took a different tack, claiming that the basic rights of LGBT people victimize anti-LGBT Christians.
"This bill is not about allowing discrimination. This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith."Arizona Senate Democratic Leader Anna Tovar condemned the legislation in a statement released shortly after the vote. It's after the jump.
"SB 1062 permits discrimination under the guise of religious freedom. With the express consent of Republicans in this Legislature, many Arizonans will find themselves members of a separate and unequal class under this law because of their sexual orientation. This bill may also open the door to discriminate based on race, familial status, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability.The language in Yarbrough's bill is so broad that it could also potentially allow individuals and businesses to discriminate against other protected groups, including unmarried women and non-Christians.
"Legislation of this kind has been attempted this year in Kansas, South Dakota, Tennessee and Idaho. Each of those attempts failed after prominent members of the business community spoke against the measures. While our state continues to recover from the public relations nightmare of SB 1070, the Republican supporters of this bill are willing to elicit the inevitable backlash and boycotts that will result from its passage.
"Arizona does not need this bill, Arizonans do not want this bill and there is no place for this bill in our modern society. We have come too far to turn back the clock with such a disgraceful assault on members of our community based on their sexual orientation."
A companion bill is pending before the Arizona House and could come up for a vote anytime. It reportedly stands a good chance of passing.
Stay tuned, folks: Arizona may soon legalize anti-LGBT discrimination. "Because Jesus" could literally become a valid excuse for refusing service to queers in the Grand Canyon State.
#2
Gryfter
Gryfter
#3
PatrThom
PatrThom
Well, it will certainly make it easier to discriminate against bigots. They'll even self-identify!
--Patrick
--Patrick
#4
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Damn, Arizona retakes the lead for most fucked up, bigoted state.
#5
blotsfan
blotsfan
Could someone's beliefs be to refuse service to bigoted politicians?
#6
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
Oh joy ...
#7
bhamv3
bhamv3
So... could I move to Arizona and start my own religion, with a central tenet of "Thou Shalt Not Be a Dumbass", and then refuse service to all these people?
#8
Terrik
Terrik
Wait, did any of you guys read the bill? I'm confused. It says its a revision---are the revised parts the parts in blue?
#9
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
...wow. I...I didn't think it was possible, I have even MORE reason not to revisit Arizona! Hold on...nope sky isn't cracking...yet.
No offense to any Arizonans out there who are cool, its just that everytime I walked in your state I felt like I was walking in an uncomfortable oven. Not JUST an oven, an uncomfortable oven.
No offense to any Arizonans out there who are cool, its just that everytime I walked in your state I felt like I was walking in an uncomfortable oven. Not JUST an oven, an uncomfortable oven.
#10
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
My aunts are moving to Arizona. If this becomes a problem, I will visit, buy stuff for them, and as I leave the store yell, "Joke's on you! I'm giving this to gay people, suckers!"
#11
PatrThom
PatrThom
Sooo…I basically won't be able to transact business in the State of AZ unless I can show I'm one of the Chosen…"because Jesus?"
Talk about taking the Lord's name in vain. Hmph.
--Patrick
Talk about taking the Lord's name in vain. Hmph.
--Patrick
#12
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Let's ignore how reprehensible this bill is for just a moment, and look at it from the business side of view, which is supposedly is for.
Why would a business -want- to discriminate? It's just asking to be slapped with a civil suit. Basically this bill is inviting people to "Go ahead, be a dick, break the law. It's cool."
Why would a business -want- to discriminate? It's just asking to be slapped with a civil suit. Basically this bill is inviting people to "Go ahead, be a dick, break the law. It's cool."
#13
Dave
Never underestimate the buying power of butt-hurt idiots. And considering the majority of people who live in that state are conservative, this idiocy will probably bring business.
Dave
Look at some places like Chick-fil-A. When it came out (-heh-) that they were anti-gay, there was a smallish backlash and then a MAJOR push by conservative and religious organizations to give them business. Here in Omaha there were lines around the block to get in. For a fucking chicken sandwich.Let's ignore how reprehensible this bill is for just a moment, and look at it from the business side of view, which is supposedly is for.
Why would a business -want- to discriminate? It's just asking to be slapped with a civil suit. Basically this bill is inviting people to "Go ahead, be a dick, break the law. It's cool."
Never underestimate the buying power of butt-hurt idiots. And considering the majority of people who live in that state are conservative, this idiocy will probably bring business.
#14
Bubble181
Bubble181
A) How do you even identify the gay? If I walk in holding hands with Dave, does that mean they can refuse me service? If I then French kiss a waitress, do they have to serve me after all? Will they force all of those filthy demon gay to wear a yellow star on their sleeve?
B) Denying them communion, marriage in your church, that sort of thing - ok. But how is "Thou shalt not serve a beer to a filthy queer" a religious tenet? Does this mean they can refuse service to anyone not in the state of grace? Serving a Muslim or an atheist must be just as wrong as serving a filthy queer. Does that mean you can discriminate against religions again? Huzzah.
C) Lot was, according to the Bible, free from sin. However, he did live in, and drive commerce with, all those dirty sodomites. It says so right in the Bible. Ergo, it is possible to trade with gays and heathens without yourself losing your religious purity. Ergo, this law is bollocks.
B) Denying them communion, marriage in your church, that sort of thing - ok. But how is "Thou shalt not serve a beer to a filthy queer" a religious tenet? Does this mean they can refuse service to anyone not in the state of grace? Serving a Muslim or an atheist must be just as wrong as serving a filthy queer. Does that mean you can discriminate against religions again? Huzzah.
C) Lot was, according to the Bible, free from sin. However, he did live in, and drive commerce with, all those dirty sodomites. It says so right in the Bible. Ergo, it is possible to trade with gays and heathens without yourself losing your religious purity. Ergo, this law is bollocks.
#15
Krisken
Krisken
You can't use the Bible to support your argument. That's their weapon, not yours!A) How do you even identify the gay? If I walk in holding hands with Dave, does that mean they can refuse me service? If I then French kiss a waitress, do they have to serve me after all? Will they force all of those filthy demon gay to wear a yellow star on their sleeve?
B) Denying them communion, marriage in your church, that sort of thing - ok. But how is "Thou shalt not serve a beer to a filthy queer" a religious tenet? Does this mean they can refuse service to anyone not in the state of grace? Serving a Muslim or an atheist must be just as wrong as serving a filthy queer. Does that mean you can discriminate against religions again? Huzzah.
C) Lot was, according to the Bible, free from sin. However, he did live in, and drive commerce with, all those dirty sodomites. It says so right in the Bible. Ergo, it is possible to trade with gays and heathens without yourself losing your religious purity. Ergo, this law is bollocks.
#16
Dave
Dave
I love the story of Lot. It's the one where his two daughters thought to themselves, "Hey! There are no men in the desert! Let's get dad drunk and have sex with him so we can have babies!" And they did. And the Lord said the incest was good.[DOUBLEPOST=1392994233,1392994192][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh, and this was shortly after his wife wasn't bad-ass enough to not look back at an explosion, so God turned her into a condiment.C) Lot was, according to the Bible, free from sin. However, he did live in, and drive commerce with, all those dirty sodomites. It says so right in the Bible. Ergo, it is possible to trade with gays and heathens without yourself losing your religious purity. Ergo, this law is bollocks.
#17
Espy
Espy
Now, now Dave, lets remember that just because something historical is in the Bible (like the story of Lot's daughters) it's not there because it's "approved" by God, it's there because it's a part of the story. And even when something *IS* approved by God in the OT we have to learn to understand those things in the context of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, and let me tell you, it's WAY more complicated than just "God said it". In fact that kind of phrasing is the sort of clue that you need to look deeper at the actual Hebrew language and what was happening culturally at the time.
#yesIhave$50000instudentloansfromgradschool
#yesIhave$50000instudentloansfromgradschool
#18
jwhouk
jwhouk
And the two kids he had turned out to be the mortal enemies of Israel.
#19
figmentPez
figmentPez
I once had a very long argument, on another forum, about how a church should have a right to fire the church secretary who was, openly, in an adulterous relationship. I'm fine with religious institutions requiring that those who represent them actually follow the teachings of that religion. However, this law is stupid. A business is not the same as a church, and should not be treated that way. If you're running a motel, you don't get to turn away the man with his "niece" because you suspect he's having an affair. If you don't know the guy, that's none of your damn business, and most of the time it's not any of your business even if you do know him.
If it harms your religion to do business with sinners, then shut down your business, because there are no customers left to serve.
If it harms your religion to do business with sinners, then shut down your business, because there are no customers left to serve.
#20
Espy
Espy
Honestly, I cannot for the life of me (and again: $50motherfuckingTHOUSAND in student loans from seminary here), figure out how ANYONE can find anything in scripture that says stuff like this is ok. I can get how they get to the "I think the gay lifestyle is sin, etc" stuff, even if I think thats based on some really terrible interpretation and bad cultural understandings, but not selling a cake to a gay person? Not letting them pay you for your services?
I. Do. NOT. Get. It.
Other than people are horrible bigots. Thats the only thing I can figure out. Because I can't find this in the Bible. If Jesus could sit down and eat with prostitutes and hang with the villains of the day surely your ass can sell some dude a widget.
I. Do. NOT. Get. It.
Other than people are horrible bigots. Thats the only thing I can figure out. Because I can't find this in the Bible. If Jesus could sit down and eat with prostitutes and hang with the villains of the day surely your ass can sell some dude a widget.
#21
Fun Size
Fun Size
But where's he going to put that widget, Espy? WHERE!?!?!?!
#22
Covar
Covar
in the gizmo. duh.But where's he going to put that widget, Espy? WHERE!?!?!?!
#23
Emrys
Emrys
It is the age-old question.But where's he going to put that widget, Espy? WHERE!?!?!?!
#24
Fun Size
Fun Size
#25
Espy
Espy
NOT GIZMO!!!!!!!
#26
Bowielee
Speaking of which, doesn't this also allow religious discrimination as well? Because that would be ironic seeing as the backbone of the argument of the bill is to curb "religious discrimination" by forcing you to consort with those filthy homos.
Bowielee
That was the Jews, we got the pink triangles. Just thought I'd point that out because some people don't even know that gays were also victims of the holocaust.Will they force all of those filthy demon gay to wear a yellow star on their sleeve?
Speaking of which, doesn't this also allow religious discrimination as well? Because that would be ironic seeing as the backbone of the argument of the bill is to curb "religious discrimination" by forcing you to consort with those filthy homos.
#27
Dave
I always think it would be great if they allowed some of these places to become the homogeneous places they would like it to be. Take a state like Arizona, tell them to have at it, then remove all federal monies and protections. Watch them pull in their Aryan utopia and watch it become the christian version of a sharia country.
Dave
It'll probably be more in the vein of, "We ain't serving no filthy muslims!" than anything else.That was the Jews, we got the pink triangles. Just thought I'd point that out because some people don't even know that gays were also victims of the holocaust.
Speaking of which, doesn't this also allow religious discrimination as well? Because that would be ironic seeing as the backbone of the argument of the bill is to curb "religious discrimination" by forcing you to consort with those filthy homos.
I always think it would be great if they allowed some of these places to become the homogeneous places they would like it to be. Take a state like Arizona, tell them to have at it, then remove all federal monies and protections. Watch them pull in their Aryan utopia and watch it become the christian version of a sharia country.
#28
GasBandit
GasBandit
Cut Arizona some slack, you guys, they're stressed out because they're beseiged by roaming packs of feral Chihuahuas.
#29
phil
phil
Arizona- Making Texas seem reasonable since forever.
#30
Dave
Dave
And Florida breathes a sigh of relief...
#31
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Ok, I know this isn't the topic of this thread, but I have to know... why should they fire her? Because she's committing a sin? Isn't one of the tenets of Christianity that we are all sinners? That only God can judge? Let he who is without sin, etc etc?I once had a very long argument, on another forum, about how a church should have a right to fire the church secretary who was, openly, in an adulterous relationship.
#32
Cajungal
Cajungal
Agreed. It's like the Catholic schools here making their teachers sign a morality contract.Ok, I know this isn't the topic of this thread, but I have to know... why should they fire her? Because she's committing a sin? Isn't one of the tenets of Christianity that we are all sinners? That only God can judge? Let he who is without sin, etc etc?
#33
figmentPez
figmentPez
It was unrepentant sin. If I remember correctly it was a very unusual case where the affair was made public, and the woman refused to admit that what she was doing was wrong. It wasn't simply that she'd violated some morals clause, and was being fired for a momentary lapse; she was actively pursuing a lifestyle that was contrary to the teachings of the church, and refused to change.Ok, I know this isn't the topic of this thread, but I have to know... why should they fire her? Because she's committing a sin? Isn't one of the tenets of Christianity that we are all sinners? That only God can judge? Let he who is without sin, etc etc?
#34
Ravenpoe
Even outside the fact that they shouldn't be judging her, Churches still must adhere to mortal authority. So even if they do decide they want to cast the first stone, they still can't, because the law says discrimination is wrong no matter how much they want to discriminate.
Ravenpoe
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"It was unrepentant sin. If I remember correctly it was a very unusual case where the affair was made public, and the woman refused to admit that what she was doing was wrong. It wasn't simply that she'd violated some morals clause, and was being fired for a momentary lapse; she was actively pursuing a lifestyle that was contrary to the teachings of the church, and refused to change.
Even outside the fact that they shouldn't be judging her, Churches still must adhere to mortal authority. So even if they do decide they want to cast the first stone, they still can't, because the law says discrimination is wrong no matter how much they want to discriminate.
#35
figmentPez
Second, it's well established that religious groups are allowed to discriminate in hiring practices when it affects their ability to promote their religious views. Church are well within their right to fill staff positions with people who believe, promote, and practice, what they, as a group, believe. This has been challenged in the courts, and the courts have sided with religious institutions on the matter. (That's why the Boy Scouts are allowed to discriminate against having homosexual leaders.)
figmentPez
First off, see 1 Corinthians chapter 5 for how the Church is supposed to deal with it's own members. The Church is supposed to judge it's own. "13 God will judge those outside. 'Expel the wicked person from among you.'" Who is, and is not, a member of a church is not under the government's say. Thus your "render unto Caesar" argument is completely irrelevant."Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
Even outside the fact that they shouldn't be judging her, Churches still must adhere to mortal authority. So even if they do decide they want to cast the first stone, they still can't, because the law says discrimination is wrong no matter how much they want to discriminate.
Second, it's well established that religious groups are allowed to discriminate in hiring practices when it affects their ability to promote their religious views. Church are well within their right to fill staff positions with people who believe, promote, and practice, what they, as a group, believe. This has been challenged in the courts, and the courts have sided with religious institutions on the matter. (That's why the Boy Scouts are allowed to discriminate against having homosexual leaders.)
#36
PatrThom
--Patrick
*and erroneous.
PatrThom
All this time I thought it was because of some automatic* assumption that everyone who is gay must also be a pedophile.(That's why the Boy Scouts are allowed to discriminate against having homosexual leaders.)
--Patrick
*and erroneous.
#37
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blog-entry/razing-arizona
George Takei shares his thoughts on the matter. I had no idea about how the state tried to ignore Martin Luthor King Day. Wow.
George Takei shares his thoughts on the matter. I had no idea about how the state tried to ignore Martin Luthor King Day. Wow.
#38
jwhouk
jwhouk
It was the primary reason why the NFL didn't award the Super Bowl to Phoenix for years.
#39
Espy
Espy
Wow.
#41
Zappit
Zappit
Seriously, what are these assholes thinking? This law wouldn't even hold up in a food court.
Even low intelligence business owners would know better. The boycotts from them discriminating would put them out of business.
You know, I don't talk about religion much, but here's my take on the whole thing. The New Testament is the new code for Christians. Jesus died on the cross to absolve us of our sins, and lived his life to personally demonstrate the manner in which Christians should live their lives. He defended the defenseless, and showed infinite compassion to those society spurned. His was an inclusive, brotherly worldview, and hate and exclusion have no purpose in it.
Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. NOTHING. Once he died, the slate was wiped clean and the Old Testament, which was the holy law for a people just gaining their freedom from slavery, no longer applied, having been replaced by the teachings of Jesus. To cherry pick lines from the Old Testament while ignoring others is essentially saying that Christ dying on the cross wasn't good enough, that his sacrifice to free us of those ancient rules and sins doesn't count. That he died for nothing. What could be more heretical than telling God that sacrificing his son wasn't good enough?
We've also proven that homosexuality is not a choice, and that there is a gene behind it. You take that as meaning God did in fact make them that way, and there might even be a reason for it. Humanity was given the instruction to go forth and be fruitful, growing the population. Our great danger with that is overpopulation. What's a way to control that growth? People not attracted to the opposite sex. There are so many loving gay couples that want children that could adopt - many denied that - yet the world is filled with children with no family to call their own. Wouldn't accepting that homosexuals are different, are human, and that many would care for unwanted children completely in step with the compassionate teachings of Jesus?
That's why I just can't see the homophobic crowd having any legitimate point. None. Especially on religious grounds, where they seem to contradict all of Jesus's teachings. The bigots scream gays will go to hell with a vengeful fury, but personally, I see them facing that fate. I don't want the bigots to burn; I just want them to learn they are wrong when they reach the afterlife.
Even low intelligence business owners would know better. The boycotts from them discriminating would put them out of business.
You know, I don't talk about religion much, but here's my take on the whole thing. The New Testament is the new code for Christians. Jesus died on the cross to absolve us of our sins, and lived his life to personally demonstrate the manner in which Christians should live their lives. He defended the defenseless, and showed infinite compassion to those society spurned. His was an inclusive, brotherly worldview, and hate and exclusion have no purpose in it.
Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. NOTHING. Once he died, the slate was wiped clean and the Old Testament, which was the holy law for a people just gaining their freedom from slavery, no longer applied, having been replaced by the teachings of Jesus. To cherry pick lines from the Old Testament while ignoring others is essentially saying that Christ dying on the cross wasn't good enough, that his sacrifice to free us of those ancient rules and sins doesn't count. That he died for nothing. What could be more heretical than telling God that sacrificing his son wasn't good enough?
We've also proven that homosexuality is not a choice, and that there is a gene behind it. You take that as meaning God did in fact make them that way, and there might even be a reason for it. Humanity was given the instruction to go forth and be fruitful, growing the population. Our great danger with that is overpopulation. What's a way to control that growth? People not attracted to the opposite sex. There are so many loving gay couples that want children that could adopt - many denied that - yet the world is filled with children with no family to call their own. Wouldn't accepting that homosexuals are different, are human, and that many would care for unwanted children completely in step with the compassionate teachings of Jesus?
That's why I just can't see the homophobic crowd having any legitimate point. None. Especially on religious grounds, where they seem to contradict all of Jesus's teachings. The bigots scream gays will go to hell with a vengeful fury, but personally, I see them facing that fate. I don't want the bigots to burn; I just want them to learn they are wrong when they reach the afterlife.
#42
strawman
strawman
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02...ve-the-right-to-refuse-service-to-gay-people/
It's long, but for those actually interested in getting past all the overblown assumptions and mischaracterizations, it might provide some insight to an opposing perspective. You will likely disagree, but hopefully you will at least understand. Here is a short selection near the end:
----------
In none of these cases did the business owner forgo service to a gay person out of some kind of disgust or animosity towards gays. They simply wished to take no part in a gay wedding. To call this discrimination against gays is to make no distinction between the person of a homosexual and the activity of a homosexual.
It’s absolutely nonsensical. It also, again, makes any comparison to “Jim Crow laws” seem insane. Blacks were denied basic services because they were black — not because of their activity.
The gay people in these cases are asking Christians to specifically participate in a morally objectionable act. You can tell me that gay weddings are not morally objectionable, but that isn’t up to you. That’s your belief. This is their belief. In America, we are supposed to be free to live according to our convictions. We can only be stopped from living our convictions if our convictions call us to do harm to another. Were any of these gay couples “harmed” by having to go back to Google and find any of a thousand other options?
...
No other group is afforded such privileges. I can’t force a Jewish deli to provide me with non kosher meat. I can’t force a gay sign company to print me “Homosexual sex is a sin” banners (I’d probably be sued just for making the request). I can’t force a Muslim caterer to serve pork. I can’t force a pro-choice business to buy ad space on my website. I can’t force a Baptist sculptor to carve me a statue of the Virgin Mary.
I can’t force a private citizen to involve himself in a thing which he finds abhorrent, objectionable, or sinful.
...
It is, of course, ridiculous to insist that any man or woman has a “right” to have a cake baked or t-shirt printed. It’s equally ridiculous to put the desire and convenience of the would-be cake consumer and t-shirt wearer above the First Amendment rights of the cake maker and t-shirt printer.
-----------
I haven't read the law as put forth, but I'm guessing none of you have either, so I suppose there's no point in debating what it actually says or how it will likely play out in the real world. However the above falls largely in line with the distinction I make between discriminating against a person, and discriminating against an activity. A cake shop that refuses to sell any kind of cake to a gay person is discriminating against the person. A cake shop that sells birthday cakes, celebration cakes, etc to a gay person, but then refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding is discriminating based on an activity, not a person.
It's long, but for those actually interested in getting past all the overblown assumptions and mischaracterizations, it might provide some insight to an opposing perspective. You will likely disagree, but hopefully you will at least understand. Here is a short selection near the end:
----------
In none of these cases did the business owner forgo service to a gay person out of some kind of disgust or animosity towards gays. They simply wished to take no part in a gay wedding. To call this discrimination against gays is to make no distinction between the person of a homosexual and the activity of a homosexual.
It’s absolutely nonsensical. It also, again, makes any comparison to “Jim Crow laws” seem insane. Blacks were denied basic services because they were black — not because of their activity.
The gay people in these cases are asking Christians to specifically participate in a morally objectionable act. You can tell me that gay weddings are not morally objectionable, but that isn’t up to you. That’s your belief. This is their belief. In America, we are supposed to be free to live according to our convictions. We can only be stopped from living our convictions if our convictions call us to do harm to another. Were any of these gay couples “harmed” by having to go back to Google and find any of a thousand other options?
...
No other group is afforded such privileges. I can’t force a Jewish deli to provide me with non kosher meat. I can’t force a gay sign company to print me “Homosexual sex is a sin” banners (I’d probably be sued just for making the request). I can’t force a Muslim caterer to serve pork. I can’t force a pro-choice business to buy ad space on my website. I can’t force a Baptist sculptor to carve me a statue of the Virgin Mary.
I can’t force a private citizen to involve himself in a thing which he finds abhorrent, objectionable, or sinful.
...
It is, of course, ridiculous to insist that any man or woman has a “right” to have a cake baked or t-shirt printed. It’s equally ridiculous to put the desire and convenience of the would-be cake consumer and t-shirt wearer above the First Amendment rights of the cake maker and t-shirt printer.
-----------
I haven't read the law as put forth, but I'm guessing none of you have either, so I suppose there's no point in debating what it actually says or how it will likely play out in the real world. However the above falls largely in line with the distinction I make between discriminating against a person, and discriminating against an activity. A cake shop that refuses to sell any kind of cake to a gay person is discriminating against the person. A cake shop that sells birthday cakes, celebration cakes, etc to a gay person, but then refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding is discriminating based on an activity, not a person.
#43
Krisken
Krisken
Nope, I'm out. The shitstorm about to hit isn't something I should be involved in.
Edit: I failed and came back.
Edit: I failed and came back.
#44
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
@stienman - Discriminating based on activity is still discriminating against a person when you refuse to sell to that person.
You do realize this right? If you don't see this, then you're right, there is no debate to be had.
You do realize this right? If you don't see this, then you're right, there is no debate to be had.
#45
Tress
Tress
I'm fine with a private citizen or business refusing to serve or associate with homosexuals, but only if they shut the fuck up and stop crying "oppression!" when people complain about them being bigots. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to refuse service to someone, you need to accept that they will not be happy, people will boycott, etc.
#46
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
But the act in question is to bake a cake for many people to eat at a reception. They are not asking the baker to take part in an uncomfortable sex act.
#47
GasBandit
GasBandit
Alright just for arguments sake then, I'll wade in.
Does that mean it's ok to insist on pork from a Muslim catering service because the caterers won't actually be eating it?But the act in question is to bake a cake for many people to eat at a reception. They are not asking the baker to take part in an uncomfortable sex act.
#48
sixpackshaker
I am pretty sure cake is on a bakery's menu.
sixpackshaker
Is pork on their menu?Alright just for arguments sake then, I'll wade in.
Does that mean it's ok to insist on pork from a Muslim catering service because the caterers won't actually be eating it?
I am pretty sure cake is on a bakery's menu.
#49
GasBandit
Let's add another thing in there, too. Legality aside, would it be ok to force a pharmacist to sell sudafed to someone who made it known they were going to use it in a meth lab?
GasBandit
It's pretty common for the menu to be customized to the client when catering is brought on.Is pork on their menu?
I am pretty sure cake is on a bakery's menu.
Let's add another thing in there, too. Legality aside, would it be ok to force a pharmacist to sell sudafed to someone who made it known they were going to use it in a meth lab?
#50
Espy
Espy
Matt Walsh is known as one of the biggest dicks in the "christian blogger" world. He spends most of his time trying to piss everyone off and get page hits. I read his post and it's garbage, this isn't an issue about religion, if it was these same people would never bake cakes for people getting remarried or sell t-shirts to anyone who eats junk food. It's about picking one "sin" and elevating it over all others in order to pursue one's political goals (or, on a more sympathetic note for many I suspect it's about a fear of people they don't understand or are told are out to get them. I understand that. It's still a bad excuse for discrimination, but it's more logical than trying to root this in scripture). I repeat: This is NOT about religion.
Here's a response to the issue from my pastor, a well known scholar and someone who I think understands the message of the gospel about a million times better than Matt and those who are pushing this thing (sorry, it's long):
Here's a response to the issue from my pastor, a well known scholar and someone who I think understands the message of the gospel about a million times better than Matt and those who are pushing this thing (sorry, it's long):
The recent anti-gay bill in Arizona which was passed last week by the state’s Legislature and now sits on the desk of the Governor, would allow companies to deny service to or discriminate against gay people based on the religious beliefs of the business owner.
In response, Greg has tweeted:
“The governor of Arizona is considering signing into law a “Christian” sponsored bill allowing businesses to refuse service to GLBT folk…”
And …
“Ironic: Jesus PARTIED with the most judged sinners, ‘yet today some “Christians” fight for the “right” not to do business with them!”
And …
“If the devil wanted the best way to ensure that GLBT folk would want nothing to do with Jesus, he’d help “Christians” sponsor this bill.”
While Christian-promoters of this bill say that is about religious freedom (see this interview), we must honestly ask what’s really going on here. Is it really about religious freedom or about something else? The following is a quote from his book Myth of a Christian Nation where Greg challenges the idea that Christians should put themselves in a place of moral superiority, based on some kind of sin-grading system.
“[W]hen people assume the position of moral guardians of the culture, they invite—they earn!—the charge of hypocrisy. For all judgment, save the judgment of the omniscient and holy God, involves hypocrisy. Instead of seeing our own sins as worse than others, we invariably set up a list of sins in which our sins are deemed minor while other people’s sins are deemed major.
Our grading of sins has nothing to do with Scripture, of course, for Scripture no only has no such graded list of sins; it specifically teaches against such a notion.
We feed our self-righteousness with this illusory contrast by ascribing ourselves worth at the expense of others.
To illustrate, more than a few have noticed the comic irony in the fact that the group most vocal about ‘the sanctity of marriage,’ namely evangelical Christians, happens to be the group with the highest number of divorces in the U. S., which itself is the highest divorce rate in the world! … Whatever our excuses, outsiders legitimately wonder, ‘If evangelicals want to enforce by law the “the sanctity of marriage,” why don’t they try to outlaw divorce and remarriage? Better yet, why don’t they stop worrying about laws to regulate others’ behavior and spend their time and energy sanctifying their own marriages?”
Do evangelicals fear gay marriage in particulate because the Bible is much more clear about the wrongfulness of gay marriage than it is about the wrongfulness of divorce and remarriage? No, for the Bible actually says a good deal more against divorce and remarriage than it does against monogamous gay relationships. Do they go after this particular sin because the research shows that gay marriage is more damaging to society than divorce and remarriage? It seems not, for while one might grant that neither is idea, there’s no clear evidence that the former is socially more harmful than the latter.
We evangelicals may be divorced and remarried several times; we may be as greedy and unconcerned about the poor and as gluttonous as others in our culture; we may be as prone to gossip and slander and as blindly prejudiced as others in our culture; we may be more self-righteous and as rude as others in our culture—we may even lack love more than others in the culture. These sins are among the most frequently mentioned sins in the Bible. But at least we’re not gay!
So despite the paucity of references to homosexuality relative to the sins we minimize or ignore, and despite empirical evidence that some of the sins we minimize are far more harmful to people and to society than this sin (for instance, greed and gluttony arguably kill millions!), this is the sin evangelical as a group have decided to take a stand on. Why?” (136-138).
#51
Zappit
Zappit
If you own or run a business, then you are out there in the public, and thus, subject to anti discrimination laws. You can refuse a client for nonpayment, bad credit, past behavior issues, but not based on who or what they are.
#52
sixpackshaker
Having a party is legal, doing meth is not.
sixpackshaker
To the best of my knowledge, the pharmacist has to sell the sudafed. But he has to keep a record of who is buying it, and in what quantity.It's pretty common for the menu to be customized to the client when catering is brought on.
Let's add another thing in there, too. Legality aside, would it be ok to force a pharmacist to sell sudafed to someone who made it known they were going to use it in a meth lab?
Having a party is legal, doing meth is not.
#53
strawman
strawman
@Espy it isn't about grading sins, it's about choosing not to participate in a sin. Jesus may have "partied" with egregious sinners, but He didn't go out and sin with them.
I agree with you that if someone wants to open a religiously strict business, then they should attempt to provide equal treatment across the board. If it's a sin to marry someone of your own sex, or divorce, or remarry, or eat junk food in their religion, then they should avoid participating in all those sins, and more importantly they should have the choice whether to do so or not.
Further, if they choose to sin in one thing, that doesn't immediately invalidate their choice not to sin in another way, regardless of the "weight" of the sins, and doesn't remove their right to protect their religious expression by not participating in acts they consider sinful.
I agree with you that if someone wants to open a religiously strict business, then they should attempt to provide equal treatment across the board. If it's a sin to marry someone of your own sex, or divorce, or remarry, or eat junk food in their religion, then they should avoid participating in all those sins, and more importantly they should have the choice whether to do so or not.
Further, if they choose to sin in one thing, that doesn't immediately invalidate their choice not to sin in another way, regardless of the "weight" of the sins, and doesn't remove their right to protect their religious expression by not participating in acts they consider sinful.
#54
Krisken
Krisken
Nobody is asking you to fuck some guy. Just require you to sell them a cake.
#55
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Can we fuck the cake? I just want to know where the boundaries are.Nobody is asking you to fuck some guy. Just require you to sell them a cake.
#56
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
Sin is subjective to most religious people @stienman . They claim Homosexuality is a sin yet completely ignore all the other -so called sins- that would inconvience their every day life if they followed the -book-
@stienman - I'm sure you realize I could go on and on. It's all about discrimination, not about things you consider a sin. There's no way to cover it up, the facts are plain. These people pushing forth the law don't want to discriminate because of their religious views, they want to discriminate cause the customer is gay and they personally have an issue with it, not because they're devout religious people.
I guess store owners can now start ejecting people with round haircuts and trim beards.Leviticus 19:27 reads "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.
Damn, there goes bacon in all Catholic/Christian restaurants.Leviticus 11:8, which is discussing pigs, reads "You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."
Welp there goes all the people with tattoos. They're sinners anyway.Leviticus 19:28 reads, "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."
Damn, guess noone is going to be allowed to wear polyester or get booted from that place of business.Leviticus 19:19 reads, "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."
@stienman - I'm sure you realize I could go on and on. It's all about discrimination, not about things you consider a sin. There's no way to cover it up, the facts are plain. These people pushing forth the law don't want to discriminate because of their religious views, they want to discriminate cause the customer is gay and they personally have an issue with it, not because they're devout religious people.
#57
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
To the best of my knowledge, none of my gay friends that present themselves as married, fucked at the wedding or reception.
#58
Krisken
Krisken
I don't see why not. I don't remember seeing "Thou shall not fornicate with baked goods" in the bible.Can we fuck the cake? I just want to know where the boundaries are.
#59
General Specific
There is a bit of a difference there, though. Being Muslim, Christian, etc. is a choice. You choose to go to the services and adhere to the practices. Being Gay is NOT a choice. That is why it is discrimination. The business in question is denying service to a segment of the population based on something they can not help.
If I were to start a business and then turned away anyone with red hair, I'd be sued into oblivion. If I then said it was based on my deeply held religious conviction that red hair is a sin, what would happen to me then?
General Specific
If they are advertised as a "Muslim Caterer" then no, it is not ok. If they are listed simply as a caterer and then get upset when you want something that should be easy for them, but is forbidden by their religion; say alcohol since it is not something they would have to prepare; then they could possibly be sued.Does that mean it's ok to insist on pork from a Muslim catering service because the caterers won't actually be eating it?
There is a bit of a difference there, though. Being Muslim, Christian, etc. is a choice. You choose to go to the services and adhere to the practices. Being Gay is NOT a choice. That is why it is discrimination. The business in question is denying service to a segment of the population based on something they can not help.
If I were to start a business and then turned away anyone with red hair, I'd be sued into oblivion. If I then said it was based on my deeply held religious conviction that red hair is a sin, what would happen to me then?
#60
Espy
The whole reason it's "relevant" that Jesus hung out and made wine and had dinner with the worst of sinners is that the religious folks of his day condemned him for it. Yet he did it anyway. He was seen as "participating" in their sin merely by his association with them. That seems disturbingly familiar to the line of thought that many seem to have on this issue.
Espy
Fair enough, lets dig in here a bit: See people keep throwing this phrase, "including me in their sin" or "condoning their sin" or "participating in their sin" or some variation, but how exactly is that the case? What scripture indicates that if you sell something to someone you are in any way participating in their sin? Heck, lets stick close to home here and say, what part of Jesus' message indicates this?@Espy it isn't about grading sins, it's about choosing not to participate in a sin. Jesus may have "partied" with egregious sinners, but He didn't go out and sin with them.
I agree with you that if someone wants to open a religiously strict business, then they should attempt to provide equal treatment across the board. If it's a sin to marry someone of your own sex, or divorce, or remarry, or eat junk food in their religion, then they should avoid participating in all those sins, and more importantly they should have the choice whether to do so or not.
Further, if they choose to sin in one thing, that doesn't immediately invalidate their choice not to sin in another way, regardless of the "weight" of the sins, and doesn't remove their right to protect their religious expression by not participating in acts they consider sinful.
The whole reason it's "relevant" that Jesus hung out and made wine and had dinner with the worst of sinners is that the religious folks of his day condemned him for it. Yet he did it anyway. He was seen as "participating" in their sin merely by his association with them. That seems disturbingly familiar to the line of thought that many seem to have on this issue.
#61
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
Depends, are you a Far Right Conservative Senator? If so you'd pass a bill like this.If I were to start a business and then turned away anyone with red hair, I'd be sued into oblivion. If I then said it was based on my deeply held religious conviction that red hair is a sin, what would happen to me then?
#62
GasBandit
But it's news to me (not saying you're wrong) that if I went into a pharmacy and said "I need sudafed for my meth lab" I would still walk out with sudafed. Perhaps into the waiting arms of a policeman, but still.
GasBandit
That's why I said "legality aside."To the best of my knowledge, the pharmacist has to sell the sudafed. But he has to keep a record of who is buying it, and in what quantity.
Having a party is legal, doing meth is not.
But it's news to me (not saying you're wrong) that if I went into a pharmacy and said "I need sudafed for my meth lab" I would still walk out with sudafed. Perhaps into the waiting arms of a policeman, but still.
#64
strawman
strawman
@Espy & @Gilgamesh now you are trying to discuss whether something is, or should be, considered a sin to a specific religion. It's not your place to tell others what they believe so there's no point in arguing whether it's a sin or not.
So at this point we have to weigh their religious liberty against what you say is discrimination against a person, and they would say is discrimination against a sin.
You are essentially stating that the fourteenth amendment trumps the first amendment, and that free exercise of religion is of less constitutional value than equal protection under the law.
I don't think there is a good way to balance the two, and honestly I've not completely made up my mind about it. I just thought I'd inject an alternative perspective into this echo chamber.
So at this point we have to weigh their religious liberty against what you say is discrimination against a person, and they would say is discrimination against a sin.
You are essentially stating that the fourteenth amendment trumps the first amendment, and that free exercise of religion is of less constitutional value than equal protection under the law.
I don't think there is a good way to balance the two, and honestly I've not completely made up my mind about it. I just thought I'd inject an alternative perspective into this echo chamber.
#65
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
Why am I not surprised the question was completely sidestepped.
Wouldn't be the first time I've gotten that response.
It's like when Science counter-points the Bible, except I use the actual Bible in my examples and it's still ignored.
Also @stienman don't try and act like a devil's advocate on the subject either claiming that everyone here feels the same way about everything. There's plenty of religious people on this board who know better that to side with this Law.
Wouldn't be the first time I've gotten that response.
It's like when Science counter-points the Bible, except I use the actual Bible in my examples and it's still ignored.
Also @stienman don't try and act like a devil's advocate on the subject either claiming that everyone here feels the same way about everything. There's plenty of religious people on this board who know better that to side with this Law.
#66
Krisken
Krisken
No one is saying you aren't free to practice your religion. That's very different from allowing you to discriminate based on your religious beliefs. There is no conflict between the first and fourteenth amendment here.
#67
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
Ugh much better put than mine, well said.No one is saying you aren't free to practice your religion. That's very different from allowing you to discriminate based on your religious beliefs. There is no conflict between the first and fourteenth amendment here.
#68
Espy
Espy
I have no idea how you got that from my post. I'm very confused.
#69
strawman
Again, I don't think there's any reason to try and debate what is a sin or not.
Only where the boundary between free religious expression ends and equal rights begins when they are in conflict.
strawman
I have no idea how you got that from my post. I'm very confused.
You seem to be saying that a religious person is not allowed to believe that providing a cake is condoning the sin.Fair enough, lets dig in here a bit: See people keep throwing this phrase, "including me in their sin" or "condoning their sin" or "participating in their sin" or some variation, but how exactly is that the case? What scripture indicates that if you sell something to someone you are in any way participating in their sin? Heck, lets stick close to home here and say, what part of Jesus' message indicates this?
Again, I don't think there's any reason to try and debate what is a sin or not.
Only where the boundary between free religious expression ends and equal rights begins when they are in conflict.
#70
Gilgamesh
Do you want to know where Free Religious Expression ends? When it affects someone who isn't of your same Religion.
That's just common sense.
Gilgamesh
There's no debate because you ignore counter-points. Krisken made it clear that the Amendments on the Constitution are clear and will be what is used by Supremacy to cut down this law.You seem to be saying that a religious person is not allowed to believe that providing a cake isn't condoning the sin.
Again, I don't think there's any reason to try and debate what is a sin or not.
Only where the boundary between free religious expression ends and equal rights begins when they are in conflict.
Do you want to know where Free Religious Expression ends? When it affects someone who isn't of your same Religion.
That's just common sense.
#71
Krisken
Krisken
Wikipedia said:"Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order," Chief Justice Waite wrote in Reynolds v. United States (1878). The U.S. Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices, e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice ofsuttee. The Court stated that to rule otherwise, "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances."[24] In Cantwell v. State of Connecticut the Court held that the free exercise of religion is one of the “liberties” protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and thus applied it to the states. The freedom to believe is absolute, but the freedom to act is not absolute.[25]
#72
strawman
strawman
There's no debate because scripture is subject to interpretation. You and I could read the same thing and come to two different conclusions. One of the reasons modern day prophets and revelation are so valuable.There's no debate because you ignore counter-points.
#73
Espy
Espy
Well, they can believe whatever they would like, it doesn't make it biblical. I think a theological discussion about whether or not it's a sin is not just a good discussion but a necessary one. I've never, in all my years and schooling, heard anyone refer to having any particular contact (selling someone something, eating with them, pick it) with a "sinner" meaning you are somehow "participating" or "culpable" for their sin. I'm not saying there might not be some biblical basis, I'm just saying if it's going to be the religious argument for it then whats the backing for it? I don't think thats unreasonable, like I said, I think it's one of the most important conversations we can have.You seem to be saying that a religious person is not allowed to believe that providing a cake is condoning the sin.
Again, I don't think there's any reason to try and debate what is a sin or not.
Only where the boundary between free religious expression ends and equal rights begins when they are in conflict.
#74
Krisken
Krisken
Well, I can't argue with that logic. Might as well go into it with "Well, I FEEL I'm right, so I'm right".
#75
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
I couldn't agree more. You're 100% right. People choose what they want to from what they read. It doesn't matter exactly what's written, just what they take from it.There's no debate because scripture is subject to interpretation. You and I could read the same thing and come to two different conclusions.
#76
Zappit
Zappit
Every time a media figure asks one of these "religion-based discrimination" advocates what oppression they have faced, they can't give an answer. They always say "None yet, but we're afraid of it happening." It's because they've been treated equally under the law. They haven't been oppressed.
What they're asking for is an exemption from the rules that apply to us all to oppress and exclude others. That's why they block gay marriage. That's why they try to block mosques. That's why they didn't want Jews in their country clubs. It's the same entitled bullcrap they've always used. They just found a new ribbon to wrap it with.
What they're asking for is an exemption from the rules that apply to us all to oppress and exclude others. That's why they block gay marriage. That's why they try to block mosques. That's why they didn't want Jews in their country clubs. It's the same entitled bullcrap they've always used. They just found a new ribbon to wrap it with.
#77
Chad Sexington
Chad Sexington
Is it worth noting that Leviticus is nearly universally recognised by Christianity as superseded by the New Covenant in the New Testament, so Christians do not observe it?
#78
Gilgamesh
You are right though, however I could find more than enough quotes of -sin- that are cherry picked and ignored by even the most devout Christian/Catholic in the New Testament as well. However as @stienman said, the conversation here isn't about what we do or do not identify as sin but where Religious Freedom ends and begins. Which has also been answered by @Krisken.
Gilgamesh
Yeah, @stienman already made it clear that what's written doesn't matter, just whatever the individual interprets from it. That's basically the answer I was looking for with my examples.Is it worth noting that Leviticus is nearly universally recognised by Christianity as superseded by the New Covenant in the New Testament, so Christians do not observe it?
You are right though, however I could find more than enough quotes of -sin- that are cherry picked and ignored by even the most devout Christian/Catholic in the New Testament as well. However as @stienman said, the conversation here isn't about what we do or do not identify as sin but where Religious Freedom ends and begins. Which has also been answered by @Krisken.
#79
tegid
tegid
Stienman, I'd say all those examples you posted are either a) providing a service that one finds objectionable and b) customizing product in a way that one finds objectionable (which is really just a subset of a))
In this context, a) could be, for instance, actually marrying a gay couple (which I'd say everyone here agrees a church or whoever can't be forced to do) and b) could be making a cake that says 'yay gay marriage!' or has imagery on it that you find objectionable or whatever.
But doing somethign that is going to be used for an activity you disagree with is not covered here. In your examples, a more apt comparison would be a muslim that is forced to prepare food not with pork, but for a christian wedding. Should they be able to deny service because they don't want their food to be used in that context?
In which point are we in disagreement here?
(Also sorry, I didn't read the whole thing.)
EDIT: Well shit, I was reading the thread as it was 1 hour ago. Sooo late. Still, trying to discuss the point that was raised and I'll stick to this for now, even though I have opinions on all the rest.
In this context, a) could be, for instance, actually marrying a gay couple (which I'd say everyone here agrees a church or whoever can't be forced to do) and b) could be making a cake that says 'yay gay marriage!' or has imagery on it that you find objectionable or whatever.
But doing somethign that is going to be used for an activity you disagree with is not covered here. In your examples, a more apt comparison would be a muslim that is forced to prepare food not with pork, but for a christian wedding. Should they be able to deny service because they don't want their food to be used in that context?
In which point are we in disagreement here?
(Also sorry, I didn't read the whole thing.)
EDIT: Well shit, I was reading the thread as it was 1 hour ago. Sooo late. Still, trying to discuss the point that was raised and I'll stick to this for now, even though I have opinions on all the rest.
#80
tegid
tegid
I went and read the proposal. I have no idea what its actual implications are.
#81
Espy
Espy
I don't think it's helpful to make fun of someone for having a different view. We can talk about this without being dicks so lets all just chill a little. Stienman isn't attacking anyone or calling names and lets be fair, he's in the minority here so it's gutsy to be even bothering to talk about this where you know most people aren't going to agree with you.
#82
Krisken
Krisken
I'm not making fun, honestly. I have a lot of respect for Stienman and he's always been one of my favorite posters since as far back as I can remember. When someone says "there is no debate", though, that pretty much ends all discussion. Wouldn't matter who had said it, whether it had been someone defending the Arizona law or someone against it. Because obviously there is debate.
And on this board, a statement like that will inevitably draw some expected criticism.
And on this board, a statement like that will inevitably draw some expected criticism.
#83
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
Wait, who called @stienman names or attacked him and where?I don't think it's helpful to make fun of someone for having a different view. We can talk about this without being dicks so lets all just chill a little. Stienman isn't attacking anyone or calling names and lets be fair, he's in the minority here so it's gutsy to be even bothering to talk about this where you know most people aren't going to agree with you.
#84
Espy
Espy
I know you aren't, I'm just throwing out a little helpful mod advice. We are passionate about stuff here and that's good, let's stay passionate.
It's more of a "tone" thing I guess Gil. I just want to make sure we are keeping our conversations somewhat respectful. Unless it's about movies then everyone can go fuck themselves if they disagree with me
It's more of a "tone" thing I guess Gil. I just want to make sure we are keeping our conversations somewhat respectful. Unless it's about movies then everyone can go fuck themselves if they disagree with me
#85
tegid
tegid
Maybe they are. But if providing a cake for a gay wedding is a sin because the wedding itself is a sin, couldn't you consider that 'the gay way of life' is a sin and that if you provide sustenance, or any other product or service to a gay person you are condoning the sin? Or worse, providing something that is used by gay parents to raise a child (e.g. selling them diapers!) With 'arbitrary' definitions this seems like the slipperiest of slopes to me. Maybe there's no other way to deal with religious beliefs, but I see a problem here.You seem to be saying that a religious person is not allowed to believe that providing a cake is condoning the sin.
#86
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
Understood. It takes ALOT of restraint for me to post in these types of threads due to how affected my entire life has been by religion and religious people. I try to be civil and respectful when making my points. I know I've been told to -tone it down- before but trust me, I am.I know you aren't, I'm just throwing out a little helpful mod advice. We are passionate about stuff here and that's good, let's stay passionate.
It's more of a "tone" thing I guess Gil. I just want to make sure we are keeping our conversations somewhat respectful. Unless it's about movies then everyone can go fuck themselves if they disagree with me
#87
GasBandit
GasBandit
Word on the grapevine is Gov. Jan Brewer is going to announce her intention to veto the bill in 15 minutes.
#88
Espy
Espy
I get it. And like I said, passion is good on both sides.[DOUBLEPOST=1393457521,1393457460][/DOUBLEPOST]Understood. It takes ALOT of restraint for me to post in these types of threads due to how affected my entire life has been by religion and religious people. I try to be civil and respectful when making my points. I know I've been told to -tone it down- before but trust me, I am.
That doesn't surprise me. No one wants to be known as the governed who allowed this. Plus I imagine it wouldn't help the state financially.Word on the grapevine is Gov. Jan Brewer is going to announce her intention to veto the bill in 15 minutes.
#89
Terrik
Terrik
Annnnnnnnnnnnd It's vetoed.
#90
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
Good.
#91
Mathias
They're asking a baker to bake them a cake for a... wedding.
Sometimes I wonder how you can be so smart and at the same time believe in such bullshit. Ah well, at least you're an open about it as opposed to the Mormons I know who are very liberal around non Mormons, but revert to crazy conservative doctrine miners around other LDS members. I don't really want to start shit (mainly because it was vetoed anyway), but this bill is wrong and you're wrong for remotely trying to justify it.
[DOUBLEPOST=1393472565,1393472093][/DOUBLEPOST]
Yeah but the writings of Paul to the Corinthians aren't. He condemns homosexuality depending on how you interpret the letters. Either way, I don't understand why the writings of a dude that didn't even meet Jesus are considered cannon, when the man himself has three eyewitness gospels written that mention nothing of the sort.
Mathias
They're not forcing the baker to make a big black dildo cake and proceed to watch them take turns gay fucking each other with it...http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02...ve-the-right-to-refuse-service-to-gay-people/
It's long, but for those actually interested in getting past all the overblown assumptions and mischaracterizations, it might provide some insight to an opposing perspective. You will likely disagree, but hopefully you will at least understand. Here is a short selection near the end:
----------
In none of these cases did the business owner forgo service to a gay person out of some kind of disgust or animosity towards gays. They simply wished to take no part in a gay wedding. To call this discrimination against gays is to make no distinction between the person of a homosexual and the activity of a homosexual.
It’s absolutely nonsensical. It also, again, makes any comparison to “Jim Crow laws” seem insane. Blacks were denied basic services because they were black — not because of their activity.
The gay people in these cases are asking Christians to specifically participate in a morally objectionable act. You can tell me that gay weddings are not morally objectionable, but that isn’t up to you. That’s your belief. This is their belief. In America, we are supposed to be free to live according to our convictions. We can only be stopped from living our convictions if our convictions call us to do harm to another. Were any of these gay couples “harmed” by having to go back to Google and find any of a thousand other options?
...
No other group is afforded such privileges. I can’t force a Jewish deli to provide me with non kosher meat. I can’t force a gay sign company to print me “Homosexual sex is a sin” banners (I’d probably be sued just for making the request). I can’t force a Muslim caterer to serve pork. I can’t force a pro-choice business to buy ad space on my website. I can’t force a Baptist sculptor to carve me a statue of the Virgin Mary.
I can’t force a private citizen to involve himself in a thing which he finds abhorrent, objectionable, or sinful.
...
It is, of course, ridiculous to insist that any man or woman has a “right” to have a cake baked or t-shirt printed. It’s equally ridiculous to put the desire and convenience of the would-be cake consumer and t-shirt wearer above the First Amendment rights of the cake maker and t-shirt printer.
-----------
I haven't read the law as put forth, but I'm guessing none of you have either, so I suppose there's no point in debating what it actually says or how it will likely play out in the real world. However the above falls largely in line with the distinction I make between discriminating against a person, and discriminating against an activity. A cake shop that refuses to sell any kind of cake to a gay person is discriminating against the person. A cake shop that sells birthday cakes, celebration cakes, etc to a gay person, but then refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding is discriminating based on an activity, not a person.
They're asking a baker to bake them a cake for a... wedding.
Sometimes I wonder how you can be so smart and at the same time believe in such bullshit. Ah well, at least you're an open about it as opposed to the Mormons I know who are very liberal around non Mormons, but revert to crazy conservative doctrine miners around other LDS members. I don't really want to start shit (mainly because it was vetoed anyway), but this bill is wrong and you're wrong for remotely trying to justify it.
[DOUBLEPOST=1393472565,1393472093][/DOUBLEPOST]
Is it worth noting that Leviticus is nearly universally recognised by Christianity as superseded by the New Covenant in the New Testament, so Christians do not observe it?
Yeah but the writings of Paul to the Corinthians aren't. He condemns homosexuality depending on how you interpret the letters. Either way, I don't understand why the writings of a dude that didn't even meet Jesus are considered cannon, when the man himself has three eyewitness gospels written that mention nothing of the sort.
#92
strawman
But I'll stop here with this discussion, it is no doubt very painful for some members of our forum, I've said my piece and spurred additional discussion, and given that the legislation has, rightly, been vetoed, there's little else to do but rehash the same things I've already said.
strawman
Statements like that affirm that you still don't understand, so it isn't surprising that you're confused.They're not forcing the baker to make a big black dildo cake and proceed to watch them take turns gay fucking each other with it...
But I'll stop here with this discussion, it is no doubt very painful for some members of our forum, I've said my piece and spurred additional discussion, and given that the legislation has, rightly, been vetoed, there's little else to do but rehash the same things I've already said.
#93
Mathias
Better refuse service to anyone whose wedding differs from traditional Christian ideals (or what you approve) while you're at it! At that point why even own a bakery that serves the public, unless you're living in some kind of blue-eye, blonde hair Fascist paradise?
But yeah, you believe in sky man rules and gay people = bad. It's cool. I get it.
Mathias
Statements like that affirm that you still don't understand, so it isn't surprising that you're confused.
But I'll stop here with this discussion, it is no doubt very painful for some members of our forum, I've said my piece and spurred additional discussion, and given that the legislation has, rightly, been vetoed, there's little else to do but rehash the same things I've already said.
Better refuse service to anyone whose wedding differs from traditional Christian ideals (or what you approve) while you're at it! At that point why even own a bakery that serves the public, unless you're living in some kind of blue-eye, blonde hair Fascist paradise?
But yeah, you believe in sky man rules and gay people = bad. It's cool. I get it.
#94
grub
grub
Paul writes about liars and adulterers in the same passage as homosexuals, so unless you have never lied you count as much as anyone else he talks about.
#95
papachronos
papachronos
/unlurk
Does anyone else see a problem in that rulings like this, regardless of intent, ultimately seek not to address an action, but a motivation? If these bakers had simply said "no" instead of "no, and here's why" there would be no story, no lawsuits, no legislation, and no uproar. And yet, the bakers would still be "bigots." The only difference between the two scenarios is that in one, the couple feels an explicit insult, and in the other, an implicit insult (if that).
Laws and rulings that specifically address motivation, rather than action (or lack thereof), stray too close to thoughtcrime territory for my comfort.
Honestly, from a practical standpoint, I don't know why the couple didn't just give them the finger and go to another baker. This seems like a lot of trouble to go to for a cake.
Edit: changed "laws" to "rulings" in the first sentence.
Does anyone else see a problem in that rulings like this, regardless of intent, ultimately seek not to address an action, but a motivation? If these bakers had simply said "no" instead of "no, and here's why" there would be no story, no lawsuits, no legislation, and no uproar. And yet, the bakers would still be "bigots." The only difference between the two scenarios is that in one, the couple feels an explicit insult, and in the other, an implicit insult (if that).
Laws and rulings that specifically address motivation, rather than action (or lack thereof), stray too close to thoughtcrime territory for my comfort.
Honestly, from a practical standpoint, I don't know why the couple didn't just give them the finger and go to another baker. This seems like a lot of trouble to go to for a cake.
Edit: changed "laws" to "rulings" in the first sentence.
#96
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
Well, since you brought it up, I might as well ask ... using your example, it would be okay for the baker to refuse to make a cake for a wedding where black people were getting married, so long as the denial was because of the wedding and not because they were black. Is that it?It’s absolutely nonsensical. It also, again, makes any comparison to “Jim Crow laws” seem insane. Blacks were denied basic services because they were black — not because of their activity.
#97
papachronos
The waters between "legal" and "good" are getting muddied here. Legal is something that is defined in code or case law. Good is a value judgment that has to be made by an individual person. So while denying a black (or gay) couple a cake because you don't believe in black (or gay) people getting married is reprehensible by most standards, it should certainly be legal.
Of course, the argument to this point is ignoring "stupid" as a consideration. Wedding cake bakeries don't stay in business long by refusing to bake wedding cakes.
papachronos
Okay? Decidedly not. Legal? Yes, unless the baker is providing a basic and necessary service to the community, and there are no other alternatives. Can there be a common carrier for pastry?Well, since you brought it up, I might as well ask ... using your example, it would be okay for the baker to refuse to make a cake for a wedding where black people were getting married, so long as the denial was because of the wedding and not because they were black. Is that it?
The waters between "legal" and "good" are getting muddied here. Legal is something that is defined in code or case law. Good is a value judgment that has to be made by an individual person. So while denying a black (or gay) couple a cake because you don't believe in black (or gay) people getting married is reprehensible by most standards, it should certainly be legal.
Of course, the argument to this point is ignoring "stupid" as a consideration. Wedding cake bakeries don't stay in business long by refusing to bake wedding cakes.
#98
PatrThom
PatrThom
Weighing in after everyone else has had a go, as I so frequently do.
In my personal opinion, a business owner should have every right to refuse service for any reason, rational or otherwise. Don't like the sexual orientation of your clientele? No cake for you. Don't like people with red hair? Don't have to shampoo it. Go nuts. Hiring and other human resources are an entirely different issue which are protected by the E.E.O.C., but as for the ability to choose your customers? There is no precedent for why anyone should have to force you to provide goods and services to someone, just because they desire it. In fact, if such a thing did exist, cable companies would be forced to compete rather than having regional monopolies. Sports blackouts could not legally exist. There would be no such thing as, "Limit 2 per customer." Bars would not be able to "cut someone off" who has had a little (or a lot) too much. The "doorbuster deal" would cease to exist. I could go on with many, many examples of what is really a "discretionary" refusal. This is not a question about Sin, which I believe has no real bearing on this case at all, other than as "a convenient excuse."
No, this is an attempt to carry personal baggage into the business space. Businesses are amoral. They don't care about religion, in fact they don't even care about themselves. A business doesn't care about anything, it just does what it is told to do, much like an automobile, or a bulldozer. What is happening here is that some people think that since they can't effect change on their own, instead they will climb into their bulldozer and direct it to move Heaven and Earth to make some sort of change. Obviously, larger businesses will have more influence, and if enough follow suit, that change starts to become a de facto standard and starts moving up the chain of recognition. People do it, businesses do it, governments do it, and the ones with the most influence generally end up with the loudest voices.
In this case, the truth is that this would ultimately be a really, really bad business decision. Any business which builds a history of "discretionary" refusals based on sexual orientation is not likely to do very well, because of the simple fact that customers (and suppliers!) also have the same sort of discretionary power at their disposal. Don't like a store? Don't buy there. Offended by the cashier's overuse of perfume? Go to a different store. Repair shop not getting your alignment right? Go to the one across town. So long as there are viable alternatives, there is nothing forcing a person to patronize a particular vendor nor venue aside from the sheer inconvenience of doing so (hence the reason the cable monopolies still exist. Moving is expensive!).
It is my belief that codifying this in State code was not motivated in the slightest by actual religious beliefs, but merely was an attempt to try and gain some small foothold towards legal precedent which might then serve as a site for nucleation to occur in other legal jurisdictions until it started to gain some real legal traction. If so, then I am overjoyed that it was vetoed, and I hope more stupid people try this crap so they unmask themselves as the senescent stoneheads that they are and save the rest of us the trouble of ferreting them out. This sort of xenophobic, exclusionary attitude is something which retards the future progression of the human race, and it needs to stop.
--Patrick
In my personal opinion, a business owner should have every right to refuse service for any reason, rational or otherwise. Don't like the sexual orientation of your clientele? No cake for you. Don't like people with red hair? Don't have to shampoo it. Go nuts. Hiring and other human resources are an entirely different issue which are protected by the E.E.O.C., but as for the ability to choose your customers? There is no precedent for why anyone should have to force you to provide goods and services to someone, just because they desire it. In fact, if such a thing did exist, cable companies would be forced to compete rather than having regional monopolies. Sports blackouts could not legally exist. There would be no such thing as, "Limit 2 per customer." Bars would not be able to "cut someone off" who has had a little (or a lot) too much. The "doorbuster deal" would cease to exist. I could go on with many, many examples of what is really a "discretionary" refusal. This is not a question about Sin, which I believe has no real bearing on this case at all, other than as "a convenient excuse."
No, this is an attempt to carry personal baggage into the business space. Businesses are amoral. They don't care about religion, in fact they don't even care about themselves. A business doesn't care about anything, it just does what it is told to do, much like an automobile, or a bulldozer. What is happening here is that some people think that since they can't effect change on their own, instead they will climb into their bulldozer and direct it to move Heaven and Earth to make some sort of change. Obviously, larger businesses will have more influence, and if enough follow suit, that change starts to become a de facto standard and starts moving up the chain of recognition. People do it, businesses do it, governments do it, and the ones with the most influence generally end up with the loudest voices.
In this case, the truth is that this would ultimately be a really, really bad business decision. Any business which builds a history of "discretionary" refusals based on sexual orientation is not likely to do very well, because of the simple fact that customers (and suppliers!) also have the same sort of discretionary power at their disposal. Don't like a store? Don't buy there. Offended by the cashier's overuse of perfume? Go to a different store. Repair shop not getting your alignment right? Go to the one across town. So long as there are viable alternatives, there is nothing forcing a person to patronize a particular vendor nor venue aside from the sheer inconvenience of doing so (hence the reason the cable monopolies still exist. Moving is expensive!).
It is my belief that codifying this in State code was not motivated in the slightest by actual religious beliefs, but merely was an attempt to try and gain some small foothold towards legal precedent which might then serve as a site for nucleation to occur in other legal jurisdictions until it started to gain some real legal traction. If so, then I am overjoyed that it was vetoed, and I hope more stupid people try this crap so they unmask themselves as the senescent stoneheads that they are and save the rest of us the trouble of ferreting them out. This sort of xenophobic, exclusionary attitude is something which retards the future progression of the human race, and it needs to stop.
--Patrick
#99
CrimsonSoul
CrimsonSoul
Man how about that Russian anti Gay law...
#100
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Got nothing against Russians. Just stupid people.Man how about that Russian anti Gay law...
--Patrick
#101
Terrik
Terrik
As someone who has actually run into exclusionary business practices in certain places in Asia (no foreigners allowed), I'm glad this law was struck down.
#102
Ravenpoe
Yes, this is a somewhat shameless emotional evocation, but I feel it sums up my feelings towards the matter. Why is it important that we govern intent and criminalize discrimination? This is why.
Ravenpoe
*snipped for length*
My response to this:*snipped again*
Yes, this is a somewhat shameless emotional evocation, but I feel it sums up my feelings towards the matter. Why is it important that we govern intent and criminalize discrimination? This is why.
#103
PatrThom
PatrThom
...and a place like that should be allowed to go out of business, too.
What's that? They have enough people nearby to keep them in business? Hey, even the Pitar eventually fell.
--Patrick
What's that? They have enough people nearby to keep them in business? Hey, even the Pitar eventually fell.
--Patrick
#104
Krisken
Krisken
Wow. Just wow.
#105
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
But they weren't going out of business. That's my point. I don't really want to get into a discussion about institutionalized hate, because I don't want to accuse anyone that has prejudices or ideas against gay people as hating them (a very broad statement), but we as a nation have seen what institutionalized discrimination can lead to....and a place like that should be allowed to go out of business, too.
What's that? They have enough people nearby to keep them in business? Hey, even the Pitar eventually fell.
--Patrick
#106
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Hence my Pitar comment. Go read the entry, it's rather enlightening (and hardly accidental, I'm sure).we as a nation have seen what institutionalized discrimination can lead to.
--Patrick
#107
Espy
Espy
Eh, the whole "A business should be able to discriminate and the public can decide" has been around for a long time, it's really just a part of footnote in capitalism. Rush Limbaugh was pitching that shit so hard back in the 90's and at the time I remember thinking, hey, that makes sense (I was 14 and HEAVILY indoctrinated, so gimme a break), let the public decide, but then as I got older I started thinking, what kind of society do we want to live in? And all I could come up with was that our nation has spent decades and decades treating people who aren't white (and usually male) like shit, either outright killing or lynching them or telling them they aren't as human as white people and can't drink from the same fountain, go to the same schools or marry people of other races or genders (and there are still people here who believe this! In 2014!). In light of that I think it's perfectly acceptable to have the government put anti-discrimination laws in place for both hiring and customers. In fact, I might argue, if we want to live in a civilized society we need it. Granted, that isn't pure capitalism, but I'm ok with that.
I do find it interesting @PatrThom that you think it's ok for a business owner to kick people out based on his personal bias but be forced by the government to hire people that they don't like. Why is the government right to force me as a business owner to have to hire anyone who I don't want to? Especially when in your ideology I can tell everyone I don't like to get out of my store?
Keep in mind, I don't think people who believe this ideology are bad, it makes sense if you have bought into a purely market driven ideology.
I do find it interesting @PatrThom that you think it's ok for a business owner to kick people out based on his personal bias but be forced by the government to hire people that they don't like. Why is the government right to force me as a business owner to have to hire anyone who I don't want to? Especially when in your ideology I can tell everyone I don't like to get out of my store?
Keep in mind, I don't think people who believe this ideology are bad, it makes sense if you have bought into a purely market driven ideology.
#108
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Because it would be unfair for a business to mandate the actions of a populace (since it would reduce choice, and besides, that's a government's job), but it is desireable for a populace to exert control over a business, because competition leads to better goods and services/lower prices.Why is the government right to force me as a business owner to have to hire anyone who I don't want to? Especially when in your ideology I can tell everyone I don't like to get out of my store?
--Patrick
#109
Espy
Espy
While I get the idea of it being good for business (I don't agree, but I understand the theory and get why people do), but I'm afraid I'm not getting the first half of your statement. How is me not being allowed to discriminate in my hiring process me controlling the public? Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet (or EVER?) but could you explain that a bit more?
#110
PatrThom
Either way you look at it, exerting the above-mentioned discretionary behavior chooses who gets to live or die. Generally, a business which gives lousy service goes out of business, which benefits society because the remaining business(es) smarten up lest they suffer the same fate. Incidentally, this is the same reason why a monopoly is bad. Plenty of examples out there of how monopolies cause stagnation, poor product/service, etc., so I won't list any. However, when a business takes money from everyone but returns it (i.e., via wages) to only a select few (especially if multiple businesses all decide to exclude the same group), then the businesses are, quite literally, deciding which populations get to live and which get to die. Now I'm not saying that the welfare of the People should be a business' primary concern, but a business should not be allowed to actively seek to exclude individuals from employment for reasons which are not specifically related to that employment.
tl;dr: It is ok for a person to starve a business, but not ok for a business to starve a person.
--Patrick
*this doesn't have to be cash. It could be credits, resources, or whatever.
PatrThom
I've mentioned it in the various middle-class/income inequality threads, but I know I wasn't speaking specifically to this. An individual has to have money* to survive, much like a car has to have gas in its tank to go. Businesses also need money in their tanks in order to function. Businesses get money from people (or each other), and people get their their money from businesses (or each other). Sure, there are statistical anomalies ("striking it rich"), but pretty much this is how the model works. There's a chain with individuals on the bottom and larger and larger businesses as you climb upwards. People give companies labor, which the companies convert into money, and people give money to companies (or each other) for which they receive labor (or the fruits of labor). If this cycle becomes unbalanced, one side or the other will wither and (probably) die.could you explain that a bit more?
Either way you look at it, exerting the above-mentioned discretionary behavior chooses who gets to live or die. Generally, a business which gives lousy service goes out of business, which benefits society because the remaining business(es) smarten up lest they suffer the same fate. Incidentally, this is the same reason why a monopoly is bad. Plenty of examples out there of how monopolies cause stagnation, poor product/service, etc., so I won't list any. However, when a business takes money from everyone but returns it (i.e., via wages) to only a select few (especially if multiple businesses all decide to exclude the same group), then the businesses are, quite literally, deciding which populations get to live and which get to die. Now I'm not saying that the welfare of the People should be a business' primary concern, but a business should not be allowed to actively seek to exclude individuals from employment for reasons which are not specifically related to that employment.
tl;dr: It is ok for a person to starve a business, but not ok for a business to starve a person.
--Patrick
*this doesn't have to be cash. It could be credits, resources, or whatever.
#111
papachronos
papachronos
Another practical concern I just thought of: would you want to eat a cake that someone was forced to make for you against their will? Let alone subject your wedding guests to it.
This isn't forbidding a discriminatory action or policy. This is the government actively forcing a business to provide a service that they do not wish to provide.
Honest, non-rhetorical question: if the situation was reversed, and a couple shopping for a wedding cake go into a bakery, find out it is run by a gay couple, then say something nasty and refuse to shop there because of it, should the government step in to force them to get their cake there?
This isn't forbidding a discriminatory action or policy. This is the government actively forcing a business to provide a service that they do not wish to provide.
Honest, non-rhetorical question: if the situation was reversed, and a couple shopping for a wedding cake go into a bakery, find out it is run by a gay couple, then say something nasty and refuse to shop there because of it, should the government step in to force them to get their cake there?
#112
Bubble181
In the long run this may prove fatal to those excluding businesses - but a business can last much, much longer than any one individual.
As far as I'm concerned, there are only a few acceptable reasons to refuse service (giving a drunk more alcohol, for example, is illegal because public intoxication is illegal). Personal preference is not one of them, and the European definition of "freedom of religion" pretty much means religion is and should be a personal choice.
Bubble181
But by refusing service to a select group (let's say, the Jews, because it's easy to type out and makes the argument more "obvious" than "homosexuals" to many people for some reason), a company can quite certainly starve people to death. There are many, many regions where, especially relatively poor, people don't really have a choice, without an actual monopoly being in place. Five hospitals but only one capable of doing heart surgery in a 100 mile radius? Better hope that one doesn't exclude you as a patient. One big cheap supermarket in the area, and 25 small mom-and-pop shops, and the cheap discounter doesn't like your kind? Too bad, you'll be spending 20% more on life necessities - oops.It is ok for a person to starve a business, but not ok for a business to starve a person.
--Patrick
In the long run this may prove fatal to those excluding businesses - but a business can last much, much longer than any one individual.
As far as I'm concerned, there are only a few acceptable reasons to refuse service (giving a drunk more alcohol, for example, is illegal because public intoxication is illegal). Personal preference is not one of them, and the European definition of "freedom of religion" pretty much means religion is and should be a personal choice.
#113
Espy
My main point in all of this, and again, one that I haven't gotten a good answer for from any source (not just here) is primarily theological (as when things are brought up as "Christian" in nature, thats my primary concern and my area of study). I find the notion of someone becoming responsible for someone else's "sin" by allowing them to purchase goods from your store to be both hypocritical and completely devoid of theological backing. As Stienman said, people MAY believe that but I'm very concerned about what their source of that information is. It's not biblical from what I can tell and other than pundits spouting it I can't really find any sort of theological source for the idea. Which makes it REALLY hard for me to take it seriously as a religious concern. EVEN IF IT WAS theologically sound then the bill these folks put together wouldn't be about just the LGBT crowd, it would be about EVERYONE who sins and it would completely annihilate their customer base because the bible is enormously clear that we are ALL sinners. I'm NOT saying people don't believe this, I am saying I can't find a way to understand it that isn't shockingly hypocritical and devoid of any real theological backing. So I assume the real motive is political and/or personal.
Espy
Fair enough, but I guess from a practical capitalist point of view I still don't see a difference.Now I'm not saying that the welfare of the People should be a business' primary concern, but a business should not be allowed to actively seek to exclude individuals from employment for reasons which are not specifically related to that employment.
tl;dr: It is ok for a person to starve a business, but not ok for a business to starve a person.
--Patrick
*this doesn't have to be cash. It could be credits, resources, or whatever.
My main point in all of this, and again, one that I haven't gotten a good answer for from any source (not just here) is primarily theological (as when things are brought up as "Christian" in nature, thats my primary concern and my area of study). I find the notion of someone becoming responsible for someone else's "sin" by allowing them to purchase goods from your store to be both hypocritical and completely devoid of theological backing. As Stienman said, people MAY believe that but I'm very concerned about what their source of that information is. It's not biblical from what I can tell and other than pundits spouting it I can't really find any sort of theological source for the idea. Which makes it REALLY hard for me to take it seriously as a religious concern. EVEN IF IT WAS theologically sound then the bill these folks put together wouldn't be about just the LGBT crowd, it would be about EVERYONE who sins and it would completely annihilate their customer base because the bible is enormously clear that we are ALL sinners. I'm NOT saying people don't believe this, I am saying I can't find a way to understand it that isn't shockingly hypocritical and devoid of any real theological backing. So I assume the real motive is political and/or personal.
#114
Bubble181
Bubble181
Espy - I think hardly anyone, not even stienman, is really saying any good Christian should behave this way or feel this way. The discussion seems to have moved on to whether or not such a law allowing religious discrimination - any sort - should be acceptable.
Anyone who truly feels this is what Jesus would've wanted...Well, they're modelling themselves after the Pharisees, not Jesus. This is a feeling I very often (practically any time there's a debate about homosexuality/forgiveness/right and wrong/love/etc, really) have about many of the American-right-Christian-groups, by the way.
Anyone who truly feels this is what Jesus would've wanted...Well, they're modelling themselves after the Pharisees, not Jesus. This is a feeling I very often (practically any time there's a debate about homosexuality/forgiveness/right and wrong/love/etc, really) have about many of the American-right-Christian-groups, by the way.
#115
Espy
Espy
What I'm saying is that there are 2 distinct arguments made around this issue by it's supporters:
1) It's a religious freedom issue. (i.e., this is the political argument): The government shouldn't be allowed to force business owners who are religious to serve people they don't want to serve. This argument is way more about politics and what the government can and can't do that anything else.
2) The Theological argument (i.e., the real religious debate): That if a religious person serves a GLBT person they are culpable for that persons sins (i.e., if I make a cake for your wedding I will be held accountable for the sin of gay marriage).
The first argument is totally valid, it's an important one in fact because it's about what kind of society we want to live in and what kind of government we want to have (it's one that I thought we settled back when we got rid of Jim Crow but, alright, if we need to have it every few decades so be it).
The second I don't think is valid because from what I can tell it doesn't have any actual religious basis. At least not in mainstream Christianity. It's not biblical, it's counter to both what Jesus did and how he acted and EVEN if we agreed that the GLBT lifestyle was a "sin" there's nothing in the bible about you selling someone something and suddenly becoming responsible or held accountable for their sin. So I'm calling BS on that argument.
After reading more peoples reactions to this here's what I think is REALLY going on here:
People are TERRIFIED. Specifically evangelicals who have been raised on a diet of end-times literature and movies (where the government persecutes christians and takes away all their rights) and right-wing punditry who spend more time stoking fear than discussing anything relevant. I've seen no less than 10 posts on FB today from people claiming this is merely 1 step towards the government forcing private religious institutions (churches) to perform gay marriages (or face… prison? Death? Maybe, who knows what OBAMA is capable of???).
People are afraid because their intake of media is fear based. This isn't' about GLBT issues and it's not even about sin. It's about fear and trying to control something, in this case the government, in order to feel some level of safety.
Anyway, those are my rambling thoughts.
1) It's a religious freedom issue. (i.e., this is the political argument): The government shouldn't be allowed to force business owners who are religious to serve people they don't want to serve. This argument is way more about politics and what the government can and can't do that anything else.
2) The Theological argument (i.e., the real religious debate): That if a religious person serves a GLBT person they are culpable for that persons sins (i.e., if I make a cake for your wedding I will be held accountable for the sin of gay marriage).
The first argument is totally valid, it's an important one in fact because it's about what kind of society we want to live in and what kind of government we want to have (it's one that I thought we settled back when we got rid of Jim Crow but, alright, if we need to have it every few decades so be it).
The second I don't think is valid because from what I can tell it doesn't have any actual religious basis. At least not in mainstream Christianity. It's not biblical, it's counter to both what Jesus did and how he acted and EVEN if we agreed that the GLBT lifestyle was a "sin" there's nothing in the bible about you selling someone something and suddenly becoming responsible or held accountable for their sin. So I'm calling BS on that argument.
After reading more peoples reactions to this here's what I think is REALLY going on here:
People are TERRIFIED. Specifically evangelicals who have been raised on a diet of end-times literature and movies (where the government persecutes christians and takes away all their rights) and right-wing punditry who spend more time stoking fear than discussing anything relevant. I've seen no less than 10 posts on FB today from people claiming this is merely 1 step towards the government forcing private religious institutions (churches) to perform gay marriages (or face… prison? Death? Maybe, who knows what OBAMA is capable of???).
People are afraid because their intake of media is fear based. This isn't' about GLBT issues and it's not even about sin. It's about fear and trying to control something, in this case the government, in order to feel some level of safety.
Anyway, those are my rambling thoughts.
#116
Dave
If someone refused to bake me a cake because I was an old white guy I'd shake my head at their stupidity and go to a different establishment, not sue them or call the papers.
I'm totally against this law and think that homosexuals should be able to get married if they want - it's an issue of equality and human dignity to me - but I also think that the bakery that was sued was done so stupidly.
One of the people I heard talking about this was also talking about the Ugandan law and they said (I paraphrase), "We struck a good balance of private and family life in the 1940s and 50s." So some of those trying to pass these laws really are stuck in the past and can't let it go.
Dave
DING DING DING!!Another practical concern I just thought of: would you want to eat a cake that someone was forced to make for you against their will? Let alone subject your wedding guests to it.
If someone refused to bake me a cake because I was an old white guy I'd shake my head at their stupidity and go to a different establishment, not sue them or call the papers.
I'm totally against this law and think that homosexuals should be able to get married if they want - it's an issue of equality and human dignity to me - but I also think that the bakery that was sued was done so stupidly.
One of the people I heard talking about this was also talking about the Ugandan law and they said (I paraphrase), "We struck a good balance of private and family life in the 1940s and 50s." So some of those trying to pass these laws really are stuck in the past and can't let it go.
#117
Espy
Espy
Oh, I should add, it's worth realizing that Stienman and I are from very different sides of Christianity, I know next to nothing about the Latter Day Saints theology so I can't speak for it. I can only speak from my knowledge of mainstream Protestant Christianity.
I will say this, there ARE people suing churches who won't marry LGBT couples. I think thats bullshit and thankfully they seem to be getting tossed out of the court system. You want equality thats great, but you can't force private religious institutions to perform ceremonies for you and people trying to do it are being serious dicks and hurting their movement as much as people pushing this kind of legislation IMO.
Totally agree, but I assume a big par tot the reason people are suing is because of the discrimination issue, not because they really want the cake.DING DING DING!!
If someone refused to bake me a cake because I was an old white guy I'd shake my head at their stupidity and go to a different establishment, not sue them or call the papers.
I'm totally against this law and think that homosexuals should be able to get married if they want - it's an issue of equality and human dignity to me - but I also think that the bakery that was sued was done so stupidly.
I will say this, there ARE people suing churches who won't marry LGBT couples. I think thats bullshit and thankfully they seem to be getting tossed out of the court system. You want equality thats great, but you can't force private religious institutions to perform ceremonies for you and people trying to do it are being serious dicks and hurting their movement as much as people pushing this kind of legislation IMO.
#118
Ravenpoe
Would you call the papers if a restaurant refused to serve someone because he was black? He probably doesn't want to eat there anymore, but should he just quietly walk away and accept it?
I feel like that's a good litmus test in a lot of things. Replace homosexual with black, and then see if you think there's a civil rights violation.
Ravenpoe
DING DING DING!!
If someone refused to bake me a cake because I was an old white guy I'd shake my head at their stupidity and go to a different establishment, not sue them or call the papers.
I'm totally against this law and think that homosexuals should be able to get married if they want - it's an issue of equality and human dignity to me - but I also think that the bakery that was sued was done so stupidly.
One of the people I heard talking about this was also talking about the Ugandan law and they said (I paraphrase), "We struck a good balance of private and family life in the 1940s and 50s." So some of those trying to pass these laws really are stuck in the past and can't let it go.
Would you call the papers if a restaurant refused to serve someone because he was black? He probably doesn't want to eat there anymore, but should he just quietly walk away and accept it?
I feel like that's a good litmus test in a lot of things. Replace homosexual with black, and then see if you think there's a civil rights violation.
#119
Reverent-one
Reverent-one
Your example doesn't fit the statement there, the objection from those that have refused to make a cake for a gay wedding isn't that they can't serve a GLBT person, as evidenced by the fact that they're alright with a GLBT buying some other cake from them (or at least, they claim they are). To be honest, I haven't heard someone put forward that extreme of an idea, that simply serving someone makes you cupable for their sins (which doesn't mean there aren't any). As Stienman said eariler, the main objection from certain religious business people is having to participate in the act they find morally objectionable, it's their personal involvment in the sin (from their perspective) they have a problem with. Which is more theologically sound, assuming their theological basis for finding that act morally objectionable in the first place is sound (which is a totally different discussion entirely).2) The Theological argument (i.e., the real religious debate): That if a religious person serves a GLBT person they are culpable for that persons sins (i.e., if I make a cake for your wedding I will be held accountable for the sin of gay marriage).
#120
Espy
Espy
I've seen it discussed in several ways but the predominant view I've encountered has been that if you sell something to someone who is living a sinful lifestyle (in this case, being gay) then you are at best condoning their sin and at worst responsible for their sin (or committing a sin of equal value) since you are enabling it. Pick your take on it, I don't really care, it all amounts to the same thing. I'm interested in the theological conclusion to the argument. We can spend all day arguing about which step in the process is actually the step that is sinful or whose sin it is but if people weren't feeling like there was something happening that God would disapprove of here there wouldn't be a problem. Either way, I don't believe you are going to find a biblical reason behind it other than "well, the gays are an abomination to the Lord".Your example doesn't fit the statement there, the objection from those that have refused to make a cake for a gay wedding isn't that they can't serve a GLBT person, as evidenced by the fact that they're alright with a GLBT buying some other cake from them (or at least, they claim they are). To be honest, I haven't heard someone put forward that extreme of an idea, that simply serving someone makes you cupable for their sins (which doesn't mean there aren't any). As Stienman said eariler, the main objection from certain religious business people is having to participate in the act they find morally objectionable, it's their personal involvment in the sin (from their perspective) they have a problem with. Which is more theologically sound, assuming their theological basis for finding that act morally objectionable in the first place is sound (which is a totally different discussion entirely).
#121
Dave
Dave
The main difference is right now at this time it's illegal to do that with black people and not those with sexual preferences that make you feel icky. I think both are wrong and stupid, but they should be working to change the laws, not punish someone because you disagree with who didn't breaking any.Would you call the papers if a restaurant refused to serve someone because he was black? He probably doesn't want to eat there anymore, but should he just quietly walk away and accept it?
I feel like that's a good litmus test in a lot of things. Replace homosexual with black, and then see if you think there's a civil rights violation.
#122
Reverent-one
Reverent-one
In the end, yes, they think the bible says that homosexuality is a sin, and without that we wouldn't have this issue. Still, like I said, the objection to personal involvement in the alledged sin is the main argument I've seen, so focusing on those that object to serving anyone "living a sinful lifestyle" (which as you mentioned, makes no sense since everyone is) is less useful simply because there are far fewer of them and even the people in the first group can think those in the second are off their rockers.I've seen it discussed in several ways but the predominant view I've encountered has been that if you sell something to someone who is living a sinful lifestyle (in this case, being gay) then you are at best condoning their sin and at worst responsible for their sin (or committing a sin of equal value) since you are enabling it. Pick your take on it, I don't really care, it all amounts to the same thing. I'm interested in the theological conclusion to the argument. We can spend all day arguing about which step in the process is actually the step that is sinful or whose sin it is but if people weren't feeling like there was something happening that God would disapprove of here there wouldn't be a problem. Either way, I don't believe you are going to find a biblical reason behind it other than "well, the gays are an abomination to the Lord".
#123
Espy
Espy
Honestly I think we are arguing semantics.
#124
strawman
This is obviously not what society wants, so they aren't going to make headway going the legislative route. Only via courts will they find legal sympathy.
They have to choose easy targets for these lawsuits.
So while you may think it's mean to punish someone for their religious beliefs, the reality is that since they oppose society as a whole, they have to target individual members of society, beat them up publicly, make an example of them, and get the laws changed to their favor.
Fortunately they are in the enviable position of being a protected class of citizen, so any efforts to retaliate under the first amendment may be classed a hate crime, and at minimum will eat up time and resources in a civil suit.
It's a one way street all the way, and the outcome is obvious.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be opposed along the way. Strong laws and strong rulings can only be made under strenuous opposition.
strawman
The only way the gay movement actually gets traction is through the courts. The only friend they have is the fourteenth amendment. Laws are not being made for them at this point in time. Just like abortion, people are trying to enact laws against them, and only where they are able to prove that laws are unfairly discriminatory do they make headway.Dave said:...they should be working to change the laws, not punish someone because you disagree with who didn't breaking any.
This is obviously not what society wants, so they aren't going to make headway going the legislative route. Only via courts will they find legal sympathy.
They have to choose easy targets for these lawsuits.
So while you may think it's mean to punish someone for their religious beliefs, the reality is that since they oppose society as a whole, they have to target individual members of society, beat them up publicly, make an example of them, and get the laws changed to their favor.
Fortunately they are in the enviable position of being a protected class of citizen, so any efforts to retaliate under the first amendment may be classed a hate crime, and at minimum will eat up time and resources in a civil suit.
It's a one way street all the way, and the outcome is obvious.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be opposed along the way. Strong laws and strong rulings can only be made under strenuous opposition.
#125
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Or, if you ask Kati about it, she will say that it is mainly about "the squick factor."This isn't' about GLBT issues and it's not even about sin. It's about fear and trying to control something, in this case the government, in order to feel some level of safety.
--Patrick
#126
Ravenpoe
I'm not sure what it is, but the wording of this post makes me very uncomfortable, and I can't seem to vocalize why. I think I'm just going to bow out.
Ravenpoe
The only way the gay movement actually gets traction is through the courts. The only friend they have is the fourteenth amendment. Laws are not being made for them at this point in time. Just like abortion, people are trying to enact laws against them, and only where they are able to prove that laws are unfairly discriminatory do they make headway.
This is obviously not what society wants, so they aren't going to make headway going the legislative route. Only via courts will they find legal sympathy.
They have to choose easy targets for these lawsuits.
So while you may think it's mean to punish someone for their religious beliefs, the reality is that since they oppose society as a whole, they have to target individual members of society, beat them up publicly, make an example of them, and get the laws changed to their favor.
Fortunately they are in the enviable position of being a protected class of citizen, so any efforts to retaliate under the first amendment may be classed a hate crime, and at minimum will eat up time and resources in a civil suit.
It's a one way street all the way, and the outcome is obvious.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be opposed along the way. Strong laws and strong rulings can only be made under strenuous opposition.
I'm not sure what it is, but the wording of this post makes me very uncomfortable, and I can't seem to vocalize why. I think I'm just going to bow out.
#127
Dave
Dave
Not what society wants? The vast majority of society does, it's only a small subset of religious people who do not. Unfortunately, they happen to be loud so people think that noise = popular.[DOUBLEPOST=1393536143,1393536002][/DOUBLEPOST]Quoting Wikipedia on polling:
Support for same-sex marriage generally correlates with younger age (younger than 50), higher education, and residence in the Northeast, West Coast and some parts of the Midwest, and lack of religious fundamentalism. Women are also more likely to be in support than men.
#128
strawman
strawman
If that were true, then all the votes that put these various state constitutional amendments in place would have failed.
#129
Dave
Dave
Or maybe it has to do with a large amount of money being funneled in by out-of-state religious zealots using scare tactics.If that were true, then all the votes that put these various state constitutional amendments in place would have failed.
#130
Gilgamesh
In almost every (if not every) State, votes on legislation are between 10-30% of registered voters actually vote on. If you use the even worse percentage of voting age people (VAP) the turnout is even worse, in some states reaching single digits. Very very far from -majority of people- having expressed their opinion on the subject. Believe it or not, the people voting on this type of legislation ARE the minority.
Gilgamesh
Votes on legislation are almost never based on the majority of society. It's based on the majority of the voters and the majority of voters tend to be older, white men who come from suburban areas. That's just Political Science fact.If that were true, then all the votes that put these various state constitutional amendments in place would have failed.
In almost every (if not every) State, votes on legislation are between 10-30% of registered voters actually vote on. If you use the even worse percentage of voting age people (VAP) the turnout is even worse, in some states reaching single digits. Very very far from -majority of people- having expressed their opinion on the subject. Believe it or not, the people voting on this type of legislation ARE the minority.
#131
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Well, the LDS Church is pretty egregious of that, using their weight to oppose gay rights legislation anywhere they can.Or maybe it has to do with a large amount of money being funneled in by out-of-state religious zealots using scare tactics.
#132
strawman
strawman
Dismissing voting out of hand... Might as well invalidate the last few presidential elections then. Lots of money spent on specific demographic targets.
If the peoples will is truly to enact gay marriage nationwide, then it shouldn't be a problem to use the legislative process to do so.
They aren't. They are using the courts to force their beliefs through the system.
Go ahead and explain how even though a majority want gay marriage, they can't do it through the normal legislative process.
Oh, and consider the questions being asked in the polls you are using as your basis for what society wants.
Some polls ask "do you support gay marriage" and typically they show worse results than those that ask, "do you oppose gay marriage". In the second case, it appears that opposition is lower than 50%, but in the first case actual active support is less than 50%.
You've dismissed voting, I suppose next you'll need to dismiss the polls that don't match your preconceived notions, right?
But the reality is that the country has become polarized on this issue, and talking about the minor difference in numbers on each side is probably splitting hairs.
I think I can still stand by my statement that this is not what society actively wants, although you could equally make the claim that society isn't actively opposed to it either.[DOUBLEPOST=1393539036,1393538852][/DOUBLEPOST]Note that I haven't looked at this years polls. Society is adapting over time, and maybe things are different today, but again, the point is that the normal legislative process is failing to get traction, and the courts are, which usually means that there's a disconnect with society at the heart of the issue.
I'm not actually all that interested in getting into an argument about what society wants. Just that the current tactics seem to suggest one thing about society's view.
If the peoples will is truly to enact gay marriage nationwide, then it shouldn't be a problem to use the legislative process to do so.
They aren't. They are using the courts to force their beliefs through the system.
Go ahead and explain how even though a majority want gay marriage, they can't do it through the normal legislative process.
Oh, and consider the questions being asked in the polls you are using as your basis for what society wants.
Some polls ask "do you support gay marriage" and typically they show worse results than those that ask, "do you oppose gay marriage". In the second case, it appears that opposition is lower than 50%, but in the first case actual active support is less than 50%.
You've dismissed voting, I suppose next you'll need to dismiss the polls that don't match your preconceived notions, right?
But the reality is that the country has become polarized on this issue, and talking about the minor difference in numbers on each side is probably splitting hairs.
I think I can still stand by my statement that this is not what society actively wants, although you could equally make the claim that society isn't actively opposed to it either.[DOUBLEPOST=1393539036,1393538852][/DOUBLEPOST]Note that I haven't looked at this years polls. Society is adapting over time, and maybe things are different today, but again, the point is that the normal legislative process is failing to get traction, and the courts are, which usually means that there's a disconnect with society at the heart of the issue.
I'm not actually all that interested in getting into an argument about what society wants. Just that the current tactics seem to suggest one thing about society's view.
#133
Dave
Dave
I'm not dismissing votes, I'm just not foolish enough to believe that votes = popular opinion. The thing about hot topics like this is that the ones who are the most likely to vote are the ones who really give a shit. So if you are really against something you are more likely to get out than those who don't care. As a scientist, I think you'd be all over the fact that a scientific poll is a better measure than a vote that had less than 20% of registered showing up.
#134
blotsfan
blotsfan
Its like the episode of South Park with the KKK. You almost want Charlie to be anti-gay marriage to make being pro gay marriage look better.
#135
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
@stienman - If you can look at Political Science facts and just dismiss them because you don't believe they're right, well there's just nothing else that can be said.
It's not hard to understand:
The majority of people in America are FOR same sex marriage. It's what the MAJORITY of accurate polling results.
The majority of people in America DON'T VOTE. It's not even close to half.
The majority of people who DO VOTE are not in the demographics that are FOR same sex marriage.
That is just a fact man, you can't disagree with it because you don't like it.
It's not hard to understand:
The majority of people in America are FOR same sex marriage. It's what the MAJORITY of accurate polling results.
The majority of people in America DON'T VOTE. It's not even close to half.
The majority of people who DO VOTE are not in the demographics that are FOR same sex marriage.
That is just a fact man, you can't disagree with it because you don't like it.
#136
tegid
tegid
Why is using courts an illegitimate way to consolidate one's rights within the system? Yes, one can use specific legislation, but going to court with some cases can be considered to be forcing society to be coherent with laws it already had in place.
As in, I don't want to be discriminated, but I won't try to push a new law for this because there's already anti-discrimination laws that protect me. Instead, I'll force you to admit that they apply to me as well because (I'm not a second class citizen, I'm not who I am by choice, Your reasons to bypasse these laws are invalid. Your pick).
As in, I don't want to be discriminated, but I won't try to push a new law for this because there's already anti-discrimination laws that protect me. Instead, I'll force you to admit that they apply to me as well because (I'm not a second class citizen, I'm not who I am by choice, Your reasons to bypasse these laws are invalid. Your pick).
#137
GasBandit
GasBandit
Federal judges are not elected, but rather are appointed. There's a hazy area between due scrutiny of a law's constitutionality and what we call "Legislating from the bench." AKA "Judicial activism." That's considered an overreach of their power. It's been a noticed trend for liberal causes to be unable to get passage through legislature (where a majority of lawmakers beholden to myriad interests must all fall into line) and instead, the activists get what they want by finding just the right judge to flex their muscles and accomplish what was failed in legislature.Why is using courts an illegitimate way to consolidate one's rights within the system?
#138
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
I typed up a kind of mean post, and I can't remember if I posted it (and it was deleted?) or if I used better judgment and didn't hit the reply button
#139
GasBandit
GasBandit
No, you posted it, and it was apparently deleted.I typed up a kind of mean post, and I can't remember if I posted it (and it was deleted?) or if I used better judgment and didn't hit the reply button
#140
Dave
Dave
I removed it. It was mean.I typed up a kind of mean post, and I can't remember if I posted it (and it was deleted?) or if I used better judgment and didn't hit the reply button
#141
blotsfan
blotsfan
And now my post doesn't make sense. THANKS OBAMA!
#142
HCGLNS
HCGLNS
Some things to consider;
The examples of florist, baker and photographers being sued for not providing their services all occurred in states where it is illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is not a protected class in Arizona. Under state law it is completely legal to discriminate against some one for being gay.
The major cities of Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff have taken it upon themselves to draft and pass their own municipal legislation making it illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation in those cities.
This bill sought to extend the privileges already granted to religious organizations in the state to not be forced into actions against their religion to include individuals and would only affect individuals inside those three cities.
This post was written while listening to Disposable Heroes.
The examples of florist, baker and photographers being sued for not providing their services all occurred in states where it is illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is not a protected class in Arizona. Under state law it is completely legal to discriminate against some one for being gay.
The major cities of Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff have taken it upon themselves to draft and pass their own municipal legislation making it illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation in those cities.
This bill sought to extend the privileges already granted to religious organizations in the state to not be forced into actions against their religion to include individuals and would only affect individuals inside those three cities.
This post was written while listening to Disposable Heroes.
#143
strawman
Public polling is notoriously hard to do well and interpret correctly. But one such poll gives 53% in support of a national gay marriage mandate, so I'll concede the point.
strawman
Consider http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...e-may-be-understated-in-public-opinion-polls/@stienman - If you can look at Political Science facts and just dismiss them ...
Public polling is notoriously hard to do well and interpret correctly. But one such poll gives 53% in support of a national gay marriage mandate, so I'll concede the point.
#144
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
stienman said:Gays oppress us! Gays oppose society! Those mean, mean gays!
#145
strawman
strawman
I think I'm going to outsource my arguing to you from now on, I hope your rates are good.stienman said:Gays oppress us! Gays oppose society! Those mean, mean gays!
#146
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
I will say I've heard the proprietor of a gun store relate a tale of a guy coming in to buy a gun. "Why do you want it?" he asked. "To kill that <n-word>," he replied. The potential customer further went on to say that if he did not sell him a suitable weapon during his visit, that he would sue him for racial discrimination (the patron was black, the owner was white). In the end, he sold the man a 12ga double-barreled shotgun, figuring that if he was going to be railroaded (blackmailed, really) into this situation, he did not want the guy who was going to be on the receiving end of the blast to have any chance of suing him (the business owner) as an accessory. The story (which may or may not be apocryphal) went that the customer waited until the victim showed up, emptied both barrels simultaneously through a screen door (killing the victim, obviously) and the recoil was enough to temporarily injure the (inexperienced) customer such that it aided in his apprehension. I do not know the ultimate outcome, but it was an interesting conundrum. I wonder at exactly what proportion of responsibility the owner should bear, compared to what proportion he believes he bears.I find the notion of someone becoming responsible for someone else's "sin" by allowing them to purchase goods from your store to be both hypocritical and completely devoid of theological backing.
--Patrick
#147
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
#149
Krisken
Krisken
Wow.
Are we getting anything out of this discussion anymore? I feel like we've hit rock bottom.
Edit: Not in response to seeing the preacher video. Seen it before and love the video.
Are we getting anything out of this discussion anymore? I feel like we've hit rock bottom.
Edit: Not in response to seeing the preacher video. Seen it before and love the video.
#151
jwhouk
jwhouk
AZ Governor vetoes bill.
The reason may have been self-serving; the NFL apparently hinted that passage of the bill would result in Super Bowl XLIX being played somewhere else in February of 2015.
The reason may have been self-serving; the NFL apparently hinted that passage of the bill would result in Super Bowl XLIX being played somewhere else in February of 2015.
#152
Hailey Knight
EDIT: Forget it; I don't want to get into it, it was two pages ago.
Hailey Knight
I'm glad you specified, 'cause I would've been confused. But as for being done, pretty much probably?Wow.
Are we getting anything out of this discussion anymore? I feel like we've hit rock bottom.
Edit: Not in response to seeing the preacher video. Seen it before and love the video.
EDIT: Forget it; I don't want to get into it, it was two pages ago.
#153
HCGLNS
HCGLNS
The NFL may have been a factor, but the bigger issues were that it was legislation that had no benefit for the majority of the states citizens, inflamed relations between rural and urban centres and put the state business at considerable risk of legal action at the same time as establishing a precedent for granting protections held previously by only corporate entities onto individuals. Every (what ever adjective describes law making) lawyer in the state was of the mind that the bill could only generate a flux of litigious nightmares for the state government.
#154
Krisken
Krisken
Since when has that stopped people?
#155
HCGLNS
HCGLNS
Stopped which people from doing what?
#156
Krisken
Krisken
NM, misread... everything.
#157
PatrThom
PatrThom
I would like to just say for a moment that the adjectives "legal," "moral," and "ethical" are not exact replacements for one another.
--Patrick
--Patrick