Arizona Passes Law that Allows Discrimination
- Thread starter ThatNickGuy
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
Zappit
Staff member
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.
Is it worth noting that Leviticus is nearly universally recognised by Christianity as superseded by the New Covenant in the New Testament, so Christians do not observe it?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, @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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Wait, who called @stienman names or attacked him and where?
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
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.
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
I get it. And like I said, passion is good on both sides.[DOUBLEPOST=1393457521,1393457460][/DOUBLEPOST]
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.
Good.
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...
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.
Last edited:
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.
/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.
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?
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?
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.
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
Man how about that Russian anti Gay law...
My response to this:
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.
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.