No one said you have to accept something you don't belive. Discrimination laws say you can't turn down service to people based on the persons race or orientation. This new law allows you to do that. As far as being a bigot, you are a bigot when you discriminate or think it's ok to discriminate because a persons race or orientation.
There are allot of fairytales that have been around for throusands of years, I don't think I want to be forced the belive them.
Race and religious beliefs are completely different. There are no religious beliefs that don't accept a certain race.
I draw the line where it obviously should be drawn. I don't see how anyone (a sane person, anyways) could think that it's OK to discriminate against people based on sexual identity but not on religious grounds, or on race, or because of gender, etc.
Many don't. I'll find the article later.
That's where things get complicated. You can't discriminate against someone on race or gender based on religious beliefs.
I draw the line where it obviously should be drawn. I don't see how anyone (a sane person, anyways) could think that it's OK to discriminate against people based on sexual identity but not on religious grounds, or on race, or because of gender, etc.
Many don't. I'll find the article later.
That's where things get complicated. You can't discriminate against someone on race or gender based on religious beliefs.
So why are religious beliefs accorded more protection than sexual orientation? Religion is definitely a preference, whereas orientation is generally accepted as inherent.
I wish you-- and everyone else-- would actually read this law.
It agrees with your position stated above. It limits governments ability to violate the rights of religious people, by requiring the government to show a compelling need. This is consistent iwht the first amendment and protects religion, it doesn't establish religion or favor religion.
The Federal law is all about people being able to sue the government when they infringe on your religion, even unintentionally. That's one thing. The Indiana law was new in that it allowed people to contest peoples' claims of discrimination by claiming it's against your religion. If you're really having your religion soiled by baking a cake or selling bouquets, then maybe you should rethink your religion, because you're telling somebody else to behave as though they believe what you do. They don't. Forcing you to gay marry, or to have a gay lover, that's against your religion and you absolutely can refuse. But gay marriage has won its legal hurdles, clearly. Now the Presbyterian Church will do a gay ceremony, they say. 8 million members. Others will follow. I think a baker's only way out is to become the exclusive wedding-cake baker for your church. I presume no gays will be married there. It would cut down your income, but...
Race and religious beliefs are completely different. There are no religious beliefs that don't accept a certain race.
And? Your still discriminating based on orientation
Galatians 3:28 ESV
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
To bad there are so many contradictions inthis book
Stop it with this sensible ambiguity, you're making people's heads hurt!
"Black, white, red, or blue. If you don't pick a side no one will listen to you!
But what if we all became purple and grey? I think that would lead to a better day."
Edit: Posting rhymes is my signal to stop. I'll be enjoying the rest of the thread from afar.
Hey, I enjoyed it
I feel I'm pissing in the wind with my non-reactionary comments. I can't compete with one liner gems like 'Faux News' and 'Tim Cook the Bigot' in this kind of discussion. Glad someone took the time to read...
A couple generations ago some religions took a dim view of interracial marriage. For all I know, some fringe religions still do today. I think most modern Americans would agree that a 'no interracial couples' signs outside a restaraunt is NOT COOL.
It's a slippery slope to permit discrimination based on religious belief to be expressed in the non-religious public space.
Like you point out, both forcing uncomfortable interactions and manifesting bigotry are wrong. I feel it is less an injustice to grin and bear serving a customer you disagree with than to turn away a customer with all the social stigma that goes along with that. Who is going to be brought to tears as an outcome of these conflicts? At the end of the day, if there are two potentially harmed parties, I would choose to protect the party who stands to be harmed more. I have a hard time believing that a business owner being made uncomfortable dealing with a customer would be more harmed than the customer refused service because of who they are. But that is just the way I approach this issue.
Good post. I am for rights of business owners, but you do make great points. How much harm is really done if you think about it. Using a pizza place with Christian owners who are against homosexuality as an example. If a gay couple comes in and orders a pizza, how much harm is really done to the owners? Look, they can not agree with the gay couples sexual preference, but just sell them the pizza and worry about the next customer. I do however see an issue with a wedding planner for example. I can understand a person not wanting to plan a gay wedding if it's against their religious belief. Having said that, making laws that pick and choose would be going down a slippery slope.
A couple generations ago some religions took a dim view of interracial marriage. For all I know, some fringe religions still do today. I think most modern Americans would agree that a 'no interracial couples' signs outside a restaraunt is NOT COOL.
It's a slippery slope to permit discrimination based on religious belief to be expressed in the non-religious public space.
Like you point out, both forcing uncomfortable interactions and manifesting bigotry are wrong. I feel it is less an injustice to grin and bear serving a customer you disagree with than to turn away a customer with all the social stigma that goes along with that. Who is going to be brought to tears as an outcome of these conflicts? At the end of the day, if there are two potentially harmed parties, I would choose to protect the party who stands to be harmed more. I have a hard time believing that a business owner being made uncomfortable dealing with a customer would be more harmed than the customer refused service because of who they are. But that is just the way I approach this issue.
Good post. I am for rights of business owners, but you do make great points. How much harm is really done if you think about it. Using a pizza place with Christian owners who are against homosexuality as an example. If a gay couple comes in and orders a pizza, how much harm is really done to the owners? Look, they can not agree with the gay couples sexual preference, but just sell them the pizza and worry about the next customer. I do however see an issue with a wedding planner for example. I can understand a person not wanting to plan a gay wedding if it's against their religious belief. Having said that, making laws that pick and choose would be going down a slippery slope.
There is certainly a case to be made regarding the distinction between simple service and participation. One should probably not be required to participate in a private event that one disagrees with or finds distasteful.
So why are religious beliefs accorded more protection than sexual orientation? Religion is definitely a preference, whereas orientation is generally accepted as inherent.
We've been over this same ground with integration of public facilities. If a black person comes in to your restaurant, and he has the money, and he's not being loud or screaming profanities -- that's what you could object to, behavior -- the merchant is legally obligated to sell that coke or that meal. Not to do that is discrimination. The baker or florist for a wedding -- that's the thing we're talking about -- are not in the religious part of wedding practices. Wedding receptions, even gay ones, or of many other religions or no religions, have wedding cakes. And flowers. Would you sell flowers to a Jewish customer, whose religion is not yours? To a Catholic, for a funeral? Of course you would. You may have many kinds of differences on theology, but you sell the goods your store has to anyone who wants them. You're not in the clergy's position. You can't tell people what to believe. You sell them what they come to your store in need of. If they've gotten married, a gay couple obviously has a different position on things than you. They want a cake.
I feel I'm pissing in the wind with my non-reactionary comments. I can't compete with one liner gems like 'Faux News' and 'Tim Cook the Bigot' in this kind of discussion. Glad someone took the time to read...
Calling it "Faux News" is just immature and stupid. I'm sure liberals don't like the talk shows on Fox News, but what's fake about their regular news programs such as Shepard Smith's?
Yes, you know, if you really want to make a case for slavery, there is support you can find in the Bible. The issue of slavery is why the Southern Baptists split off from the Baptist Church. Later, many preachers were supporters of segregation. They felt there were religious grounds against interracial marriages.
Some religions refuse to treat their sick children with something their religion says is immoral. Or they won't allow blood transfusions, things like that. Well, generally, doctors will try to persuade you that you're putting yourself in danger and urge you to treat the condition. But if you're certain, they will let you have your wish, after consulting with the hospital, getting legal papers signed and so on. The exception is minor children. If they are being hurt by their parent's relgious beliefs, the state can and often does step in, revoke the parent's custody, and let the treatment be done. In the same way, if a religion started here that included human sacrifice, it would have to either move away, or the priests would all go to jail. There are limits to the First Amendment too.
Yes, you know, if you really want to make a case for slavery, there is support you can find in the Bible. The issue of slavery is why the Southern Baptists split off from the Baptist Church. Later, many preachers were supporters of segregation. They felt there were religious grounds against interracial marriages.
Some religions refuse to treat their sick children with something their religion says is immoral. Or they won't allow blood transfusions, things like that. Well, generally, doctors will try to persuade you that you're putting yourself in danger and urge you to treat the condition. But if you're certain, they will let you have your wish, after consulting with the hospital, getting legal papers signed and so on. The exception is minor children. If they are being hurt by their parent's relgious beliefs, the state can and often does step in, revoke the parent's custody, and let the treatment be done. In the same way, if a religion started here that included human sacrifice, it would have to either move away, or the priests would all go to jail. There are limits to the First Amendment too.
I'm sure I'll get a lot of hate for saying this, but a world free of religions would really be a better place if you think about it.
Good post. I am for rights of business owners, but you do make great points. How much harm is really done if you think about it. Using a pizza place with Christian owners who are against homosexuality as an example. If a gay couple comes in and orders a pizza, how much harm is really done to the owners? Look, they can not agree with the gay couples sexual preference, but just sell them the pizza and worry about the next customer. I do however see an issue with a wedding planner for example. I can understand a person not wanting to plan a gay wedding if it's against their religious belief. Having said that, making laws that pick and choose would be going down a slippery slope.
I support the rights of business owners, too. I am one, I freelance full-time. And I don't want anyone telling me who I MUST take on as customers. At the same time, I can't imagine turning away a customer for a non-business reason. I hold no beliefs that would cause me the conflict being discussed.
Your comparison of the pizza joint and the wedding planner is interesting. A wedding planner would work more closely and be more involved with clients. Kind of like my freelance clients. It's harder to put aside fundamental differences in values when you must work very closely with a client.
I would certainly be uncomfortable if I had a client who used a lot of racial slurs in professional settings. I wouldn't fire the client for this offensive behavior unless the behavior started to harm my business or reputation. I wouldn't like him much, though.
And I actually had this customer at one time. He left on his own eventually, he thought I charged too much.
I feel it is rather sad that people can't just treat each other well, without pushing for laws to codify poor treatment of our fellow citizens.
I'm not religious, but i find a lot of wisdom in the golden rule: Do onto others as you'd have them do onto you.
The onus is on us to treat others well, before protecting ourselves from things we don't like about others
Calling it "Faux News" is just immature and stupid. I'm sure liberals don't like the talk shows on Fox News, but what's fake about their regular news programs such as Shepard Smith's?
You do realize I was listing examples of the kind of reactionary one-liners I don't use in my posts here, right? I feel the one liners get all the attention, while the more nuanced discussion is drowned out.
It is impressive. You aren't going to compare the ratings of Fox News Channel to National Geographic. Fox News ratings are higher than any other news station. To me, that's impressive. Ratings are everything when it comes to TV.
Actually, it is only impressive on how they're massively tailored to their audience. This is more representative of how cohesive and easy to coral in one direction the post 1970 Right has always been compared to the Left, and the power of focus group to exploit this cohesiveness. Ironically, the core of the right are the Dixiecrats that left the Democratic party under Johnson. That led the GOP to power for 20 of the next 24 years. The fragmentation of the left, and the fact they vote less (the young and minorities tend to vote a lot less), is what kept it out of power from most of the 1968 to 1992 period.
You do realize I was listing examples of the kind of reactionary one-liners I don't use in my posts here, right? I feel the one liners get all the attention, while the more nuanced discussion is drowned out.
I realized that after I made my post. I should have directed my comment to someone else so disregard what I said.
Comments
No one said you have to accept something you don't belive. Discrimination laws say you can't turn down service to people based on the persons race or orientation. This new law allows you to do that. As far as being a bigot, you are a bigot when you discriminate or think it's ok to discriminate because a persons race or orientation.
There are allot of fairytales that have been around for throusands of years, I don't think I want to be forced the belive them.
Race and religious beliefs are completely different. There are no religious beliefs that don't accept a certain race.
I draw the line where it obviously should be drawn. I don't see how anyone (a sane person, anyways) could think that it's OK to discriminate against people based on sexual identity but not on religious grounds, or on race, or because of gender, etc.
Many don't. I'll find the article later.
That's where things get complicated. You can't discriminate against someone on race or gender based on religious beliefs.
I draw the line where it obviously should be drawn. I don't see how anyone (a sane person, anyways) could think that it's OK to discriminate against people based on sexual identity but not on religious grounds, or on race, or because of gender, etc.
Many don't. I'll find the article later.
That's where things get complicated. You can't discriminate against someone on race or gender based on religious beliefs.
So why are religious beliefs accorded more protection than sexual orientation? Religion is definitely a preference, whereas orientation is generally accepted as inherent.
I wish you-- and everyone else-- would actually read this law.
It agrees with your position stated above. It limits governments ability to violate the rights of religious people, by requiring the government to show a compelling need. This is consistent iwht the first amendment and protects religion, it doesn't establish religion or favor religion.
The Federal law is all about people being able to sue the government when they infringe on your religion, even unintentionally. That's one thing. The Indiana law was new in that it allowed people to contest peoples' claims of discrimination by claiming it's against your religion. If you're really having your religion soiled by baking a cake or selling bouquets, then maybe you should rethink your religion, because you're telling somebody else to behave as though they believe what you do. They don't. Forcing you to gay marry, or to have a gay lover, that's against your religion and you absolutely can refuse. But gay marriage has won its legal hurdles, clearly. Now the Presbyterian Church will do a gay ceremony, they say. 8 million members. Others will follow. I think a baker's only way out is to become the exclusive wedding-cake baker for your church. I presume no gays will be married there. It would cut down your income, but...
And? Your still discriminating based on orientation
Galatians 3:28 ESV
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
To bad there are so many contradictions inthis book
Hey, I enjoyed it
I feel I'm pissing in the wind with my non-reactionary comments. I can't compete with one liner gems like 'Faux News' and 'Tim Cook the Bigot' in this kind of discussion. Glad someone took the time to read...
A couple generations ago some religions took a dim view of interracial marriage. For all I know, some fringe religions still do today. I think most modern Americans would agree that a 'no interracial couples' signs outside a restaraunt is NOT COOL.
It's a slippery slope to permit discrimination based on religious belief to be expressed in the non-religious public space.
Like you point out, both forcing uncomfortable interactions and manifesting bigotry are wrong. I feel it is less an injustice to grin and bear serving a customer you disagree with than to turn away a customer with all the social stigma that goes along with that. Who is going to be brought to tears as an outcome of these conflicts? At the end of the day, if there are two potentially harmed parties, I would choose to protect the party who stands to be harmed more. I have a hard time believing that a business owner being made uncomfortable dealing with a customer would be more harmed than the customer refused service because of who they are. But that is just the way I approach this issue.
Good post. I am for rights of business owners, but you do make great points. How much harm is really done if you think about it. Using a pizza place with Christian owners who are against homosexuality as an example. If a gay couple comes in and orders a pizza, how much harm is really done to the owners? Look, they can not agree with the gay couples sexual preference, but just sell them the pizza and worry about the next customer. I do however see an issue with a wedding planner for example. I can understand a person not wanting to plan a gay wedding if it's against their religious belief. Having said that, making laws that pick and choose would be going down a slippery slope.
A couple generations ago some religions took a dim view of interracial marriage. For all I know, some fringe religions still do today. I think most modern Americans would agree that a 'no interracial couples' signs outside a restaraunt is NOT COOL.
It's a slippery slope to permit discrimination based on religious belief to be expressed in the non-religious public space.
Like you point out, both forcing uncomfortable interactions and manifesting bigotry are wrong. I feel it is less an injustice to grin and bear serving a customer you disagree with than to turn away a customer with all the social stigma that goes along with that. Who is going to be brought to tears as an outcome of these conflicts? At the end of the day, if there are two potentially harmed parties, I would choose to protect the party who stands to be harmed more. I have a hard time believing that a business owner being made uncomfortable dealing with a customer would be more harmed than the customer refused service because of who they are. But that is just the way I approach this issue.
Good post. I am for rights of business owners, but you do make great points. How much harm is really done if you think about it. Using a pizza place with Christian owners who are against homosexuality as an example. If a gay couple comes in and orders a pizza, how much harm is really done to the owners? Look, they can not agree with the gay couples sexual preference, but just sell them the pizza and worry about the next customer. I do however see an issue with a wedding planner for example. I can understand a person not wanting to plan a gay wedding if it's against their religious belief. Having said that, making laws that pick and choose would be going down a slippery slope.
There is certainly a case to be made regarding the distinction between simple service and participation. One should probably not be required to participate in a private event that one disagrees with or finds distasteful.
So why are religious beliefs accorded more protection than sexual orientation? Religion is definitely a preference, whereas orientation is generally accepted as inherent.
We've been over this same ground with integration of public facilities. If a black person comes in to your restaurant, and he has the money, and he's not being loud or screaming profanities -- that's what you could object to, behavior -- the merchant is legally obligated to sell that coke or that meal. Not to do that is discrimination. The baker or florist for a wedding -- that's the thing we're talking about -- are not in the religious part of wedding practices. Wedding receptions, even gay ones, or of many other religions or no religions, have wedding cakes. And flowers. Would you sell flowers to a Jewish customer, whose religion is not yours? To a Catholic, for a funeral? Of course you would. You may have many kinds of differences on theology, but you sell the goods your store has to anyone who wants them. You're not in the clergy's position. You can't tell people what to believe. You sell them what they come to your store in need of. If they've gotten married, a gay couple obviously has a different position on things than you. They want a cake.
Hey, I enjoyed it
I feel I'm pissing in the wind with my non-reactionary comments. I can't compete with one liner gems like 'Faux News' and 'Tim Cook the Bigot' in this kind of discussion. Glad someone took the time to read...
Calling it "Faux News" is just immature and stupid. I'm sure liberals don't like the talk shows on Fox News, but what's fake about their regular news programs such as Shepard Smith's?
And? Your still discriminating based on orientation
Galatians 3:28 ESV
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
To bad there are so many contradictions inthis book
I never said I personally discriminate based on sexual preference.
I didn't mean you personally, I mean this law allows people to discriminate based on orientation
Yes, you know, if you really want to make a case for slavery, there is support you can find in the Bible. The issue of slavery is why the Southern Baptists split off from the Baptist Church. Later, many preachers were supporters of segregation. They felt there were religious grounds against interracial marriages.
Some religions refuse to treat their sick children with something their religion says is immoral. Or they won't allow blood transfusions, things like that. Well, generally, doctors will try to persuade you that you're putting yourself in danger and urge you to treat the condition. But if you're certain, they will let you have your wish, after consulting with the hospital, getting legal papers signed and so on. The exception is minor children. If they are being hurt by their parent's relgious beliefs, the state can and often does step in, revoke the parent's custody, and let the treatment be done. In the same way, if a religion started here that included human sacrifice, it would have to either move away, or the priests would all go to jail. There are limits to the First Amendment too.
I didn't mean you personally, I mean this law allows people to discriminate based on orientation
Ok. I misread what you said then.
Yes, you know, if you really want to make a case for slavery, there is support you can find in the Bible. The issue of slavery is why the Southern Baptists split off from the Baptist Church. Later, many preachers were supporters of segregation. They felt there were religious grounds against interracial marriages.
Some religions refuse to treat their sick children with something their religion says is immoral. Or they won't allow blood transfusions, things like that. Well, generally, doctors will try to persuade you that you're putting yourself in danger and urge you to treat the condition. But if you're certain, they will let you have your wish, after consulting with the hospital, getting legal papers signed and so on. The exception is minor children. If they are being hurt by their parent's relgious beliefs, the state can and often does step in, revoke the parent's custody, and let the treatment be done. In the same way, if a religion started here that included human sacrifice, it would have to either move away, or the priests would all go to jail. There are limits to the First Amendment too.
I'm sure I'll get a lot of hate for saying this, but a world free of religions would really be a better place if you think about it.
I support the rights of business owners, too. I am one, I freelance full-time. And I don't want anyone telling me who I MUST take on as customers. At the same time, I can't imagine turning away a customer for a non-business reason. I hold no beliefs that would cause me the conflict being discussed.
Your comparison of the pizza joint and the wedding planner is interesting. A wedding planner would work more closely and be more involved with clients. Kind of like my freelance clients. It's harder to put aside fundamental differences in values when you must work very closely with a client.
I would certainly be uncomfortable if I had a client who used a lot of racial slurs in professional settings. I wouldn't fire the client for this offensive behavior unless the behavior started to harm my business or reputation. I wouldn't like him much, though.
And I actually had this customer at one time. He left on his own eventually, he thought I charged too much.
I feel it is rather sad that people can't just treat each other well, without pushing for laws to codify poor treatment of our fellow citizens.
I'm not religious, but i find a lot of wisdom in the golden rule: Do onto others as you'd have them do onto you.
The onus is on us to treat others well, before protecting ourselves from things we don't like about others
You do realize I was listing examples of the kind of reactionary one-liners I don't use in my posts here, right? I feel the one liners get all the attention, while the more nuanced discussion is drowned out.
It is impressive. You aren't going to compare the ratings of Fox News Channel to National Geographic. Fox News ratings are higher than any other news station. To me, that's impressive. Ratings are everything when it comes to TV.
Actually, it is only impressive on how they're massively tailored to their audience. This is more representative of how cohesive and easy to coral in one direction the post 1970 Right has always been compared to the Left, and the power of focus group to exploit this cohesiveness. Ironically, the core of the right are the Dixiecrats that left the Democratic party under Johnson. That led the GOP to power for 20 of the next 24 years. The fragmentation of the left, and the fact they vote less (the young and minorities tend to vote a lot less), is what kept it out of power from most of the 1968 to 1992 period.
You do realize I was listing examples of the kind of reactionary one-liners I don't use in my posts here, right? I feel the one liners get all the attention, while the more nuanced discussion is drowned out.
I realized that after I made my post. I should have directed my comment to someone else so disregard what I said.