Apple says Mississippi 'religious freedom' bill 'empowers discrimination'

1468910

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 187
    designrdesignr Posts: 499member

    oseame said:
    designr said:

    1. Well, stating a truth is (e.g., X is immoral according to God) may or may not be "passing judgement" but it certainly is not prohibited by God.

    2. The point is that some genuinely feel (whether you or I agree with them or not) that being involved with a same-sex wedding in those ways enables, supports or condones what they view as a sinful activity. The real issue here is whether you have any right to impose whatever our view of that question might be onto others by compelling them to take an action against their will under threat of the power of the state. I say no one has that right.

    1. I should have said acting on that judgement but in any case I think it's hasty to make statements about what's certainly allowed or prohibited by god

    2. It could be said that paying taxes enables, supports or condones what many view as sinful activity including but not limited to same-sex marriage, but I don't see many people refusing that particular imposition of government for the same views regardless of how strong their will not to pay taxes may be.

    1. Are you suggesting that God does not want for us to speak the truth about what is right and wrong?

    2. In many cases it does, and it's true that most people don't. But that doesn't mean it's right.
    tallest skilleighr
  • Reply 102 of 187
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,782member
    designr said:

    Funny. I never mentioned the Bible.
    Sorry I should not have assumed that is what you were basing your rights on. From where do you get your rights?
    londor
  • Reply 103 of 187
    designrdesignr Posts: 499member
    volcan said:
    designr said:

    Funny. I never mentioned the Bible.
    Sorry I should not have assumed that is what you were basing your rights on. From where do you get your rights?
    Check out natural rights theory.

  • Reply 104 of 187
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,782member
    designr said:

    Check out natural rights theory.

    Ok it is theory then. I'll go with US law.
    londorpropodlatifbp
  • Reply 105 of 187
    oseameoseame Posts: 50member
    designr said:

    oseame said:
    1. I should have said acting on that judgement but in any case I think it's hasty to make statements about what's certainly allowed or prohibited by god

    2. It could be said that paying taxes enables, supports or condones what many view as sinful activity including but not limited to same-sex marriage, but I don't see many people refusing that particular imposition of government for the same views regardless of how strong their will not to pay taxes may be.

    1. Are you suggesting that God does not want for us to speak the truth about what is right and wrong?

    2. In many cases it does, and it's true that most people don't. But that doesn't mean it's right.
    1. No, I'm just saying we shouldn't state it as definitively being god's opinion and act negatively upon those opinions; For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    2. Regardless of whether it's right it seems odd to pick and choose by which means you will enable, support or condone the same behaviours you believe to be immoral. It seems to suggest that one would be willing to go only so far in support of such strongly held religious convictions.
  • Reply 106 of 187
    designrdesignr Posts: 499member
    volcan said:
    designr said:

    Check out natural rights theory.

    Ok it is theory then. I'll go with US law.
    Brilliant! Just casually dismiss hundreds of years of political philosophy, thinking and theory...by some widely admire and accepted political thinkers and philosophers...much of which is the basis of the US founding principles and documents. 
    edited April 2016 tallest skil
  • Reply 107 of 187
    designrdesignr Posts: 499member

    oseame said:
    designr said:


    1. Are you suggesting that God does not want for us to speak the truth about what is right and wrong?

    2. In many cases it does, and it's true that most people don't. But that doesn't mean it's right.
    1. No, I'm just saying we shouldn't state it as definitively being god's opinion and act negatively upon those opinions; For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    2. Regardless of whether it's right it seems odd to pick and choose by which means you will enable, support or condone the same behaviours you believe to be immoral. It seems to suggest that one would be willing to go only so far in support of such strongly held religious convictions.
    2. Indeed it might show a limitation of true convictions. It might be an indication of fighting the battles you can fight. Christians genuinely try to sort out things like the Romans 13 parts, with not sinning or supporting sin. Etc. This isn't all black and white. But I do think there are core principles to be discussed....but they won't be because they're getting shouted down in the name of anti-religious bigotry, hatred and intolerance.
    edited April 2016 tallest skil
  • Reply 108 of 187
    pembrokepembroke Posts: 219member

    TL;DR: ‘Freedom of Religion’ – THAT is the problem. It’s tragically vague, a crock and should be phased out.

    The spirit of the phrase 'Freedom of Religion' presumes that religions in general, the tenets, values and practices apparently endorsed by the god, are benign. However, it is easily arguable, particularly with respect the texts ascribed to the Abrahamic god, that these presumptions are absolutely not the case. Some of the Abrahamic values are idiotic and illogical, some are easily arguable as being odious in relation to considerations of fairness, kindness, empathy, patience, common sense and reason.  

    Freedom to believe in a particular spirit, to privately pray to that spirit – to publicly announce one’s belief – that’s absolutely fine and benign. However, freedom to practice one’s religion cannot be absolute. It can be deeply problematic, as the practices may be odious and infringe on the liberties of others, particularly in public spaces. Do Jews, Christians and Muslims have the right to enslave given the tacit endorsement of the practice in their texts? Does one have the right to lob off bits of their children? We argue about the rights of the foetus, but not the rights of the infant to choose whether s/he wants their bits hacked off. Do Muslims have the right to pray in the middle of the road at rush hour under the appeal to freedom of religion? Do Pastafarians have the right to wear colanders for their Photo IDs?  

    Freedom of speech (that doesn't incite hatred) – yes. The spirit of ‘Freedom of Speech’ is in relation to the right, the freedom, to openly argue against the decisions of the Community’s leadership. That’s about it. We need ‘Freedom of Speech’, it’s sufficient; we need to dump ‘freedom of religion’ (to believe in whatever god one wants) as it is, for all intents and purposes, covered by ‘freedom of Speech’.  

    No one has the right to not feel insulted, or to not feel embarrassment. Arguing against, or ridiculing, an ideology, like a religion or political views, is not incitement to hatred. And let’s not forget, in the reference to Race, Gender, nationality and religion, ‘religion’ is the odd one out as it is a CHOICE, it’s not inherent; because it’s a choice, an ideology, one shouldn't be criminalised for belittling it. Otherwise we’re on the road to being criminalised for besmirching, say, Republicanism – are you reading this Donald Trump?    

    People should have the right to refrain from doing business or associating with those whose values they find odious – and, to determine a rule by which to live, what exactly is deemed odious must be determined by what the society, in general, feels to be odious. The trouble with this is the measure of society. Is the society one’s neighbourhood? Town? City? All the people of the State or its ‘representatives’, or is it the majority of the population of the USA?

    Should I have the right to not serve anyone who values and promotes the Old Testament - which contains many passages reflecting the endorsement of slavery, unfairness, lack of empathy, immorality, cruelty, and idiocy - as a Guide for living? Or, as a Baker, to not serve someone who wants a cake with the words ‘Behead those who besmirch Mohamed’? I would say, yes, I have the right. What if the person who wanted that told me it was for a ruse and so therefore it would be morally ‘ok’? Would that affect the correctness of my position of refusal?

    I can read some contradiction in what I've written above. I'm not sure where I'm heading with this. Sadly, it may be ‘might is right’? I would hope it to be the might of fair-play, calm reflection, common sense and logic – without an appeal to the evidently absent spirit world, it's alleged texts, and what She allegedly wants.

  • Reply 109 of 187
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,509member
    designr said:
    flaneur said:
    Just trying to give you an insight into the psychology behind your position, no charge.

    You're taking this way too personally. Do you have the right to force me etc.? You have nothing to do with it. The law requires that I don't discriminate against anyone if I'm operating a public-facing service.

    Does the gov't. (my society) have the right to require me to not discriminate against you on the basis of your sexual preference, and to offer you the same service that I offer to others? Yes, because society provides the platform that allows me to carry on my public business as a livelihood. 
    It was a yes or no question. Your evasion speaks volumes.
    It was a bogus yes or no question, prosecutor. The government, the instrument of our collective will, has evolved to the point to where slavery is prohibited, to where our former slaves have full rights to all the benefits of our society, to where women have equal standing with men, and to where people of any sexual or gender identity have equal rights to all others. 

    If you are part of a gay couple and you want my pizzaria to cater your wedding, then I follow the law, run my business properly, and cater the wedding. I also do it if you are an Aryan Nation couple, or fundamentalist pagans.

    "You" are not forcing me to do anything. "You" are not the issue. That you want to make yourself the issue "speaks volumes."
    edited April 2016 londor
  • Reply 110 of 187
    designrdesignr Posts: 499member
    pembroke said:

    No one has the right to not feel insulted, or to not feel embarrassment. Arguing against, or ridiculing, an ideology, like a religion or political views, is not incitement to hatred.

    You haven't been watching the news much in recent years I guess.

     :D 
  • Reply 111 of 187
    designrdesignr Posts: 499member
    flaneur said:
    designr said:
    It was a yes or no question. Your evasion speaks volumes.
    It was a bogus yes or no question, prosecutor. The government, the instrument of our collective will, has evolved to the point to where slavery is prohibited, to where our former slaves have full rights to all the benefits of our society, to where women have equal standing with men, and to where people of any sexual or gender identity have equal rights to all others. 

    If you are part of a gay couple and you want my pizzaria to cater your wedding, then I follow the law, run my business properly, and cater the wedding. I also do it if you are an Aryan Nation couple, or fundamentalist pagans.

    "You" are not forcing me to do anything. "You" are not the issue. That you want to make yourself the issue "speaks volumes."
    Yes my use of "you" does speak volumes, as does your deference to the state. Routing the action through the state may appease your conscience and assuage your guilt but it doesn't change the fundamental nature of what's going on. It was not a "bogus question" but one that lays bare what is trying to be accomplished. I understand that doing say makes some people feel uncomfortable with the fact that they endorse such compulsion. But, oh well.

    I do find it ironic (though I suspect you have overlooked the irony) of talking about the government (which originally allowed and sanctioned slavery) and now (rightly, in alignment with basic, natural rights) prohibits it, while suggesting that a new kind of slavery should be enforced by same government.

    Wow.
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 112 of 187
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,782member
    designr said:
    volcan said:
    Ok it is theory then. I'll go with US law.
    Brilliant! Just casually dismiss hundreds of years of political philosophy thinking and theory....much of which is the basis of the US founding principles and documents. 
    The only natural right is might makes right, which has been substantially lessened by common sense laws. That is why we have laws. Otherwise people would go around killing, plundering, and enslaving others. The US is a nation of laws. If you decline to live by the law you can move somewhere else or face the consequences.
    londorsingularitypropod
  • Reply 113 of 187
    designrdesignr Posts: 499member
    volcan said:
    designr said:
    Brilliant! Just casually dismiss hundreds of years of political philosophy thinking and theory....much of which is the basis of the US founding principles and documents. 
    The only natural right is might makes right, which has been substantially lessened by common sense laws. That is why we have laws. Otherwise people would go around killing, plundering, and enslaving others. The US is a nation of laws. If you decline to live by the law you can move somewhere else or face the consequences.
    Actually "might makes right" is NOT a right. That statement alone makes me realize you don't understand what rights are. Power (i.e., "might") and rights are not the same thing. In fact, you are fundamentally appealing the "might makes right" idea: The power/might of the state and the "will (might) of the people" rather than from a core set of foundational and consistent principles that respects the individual's rights.

    Some reading in this area may be useful to you.
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 114 of 187
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,782member
    designr said:

    core set of foundational and consistent principles.
    Would you mind briefly spelling out these foundational and consistent principles?
    londor
  • Reply 115 of 187
    designrdesignr Posts: 499member
    volcan said:
    designr said:

    core set of foundational and consistent principles.
    Would you mind briefly spelling out these foundational and consistent principles?
    The "Reader's Digest version":
    1. Every individual human being is born with the basic, foundational, core, natural rights to life, liberty and property.
    2. Other rights logically and naturally derive from these (e.g., right to defend self and property, right to trade property, right to not be enslaved or compelled into labor for another, etc.)
    3. You cannot have a "right" that fundamentally violates these rights in/for another individual (e.g., I may have a right to have or get a cake for my wedding, but I do not have any right to make any particular individual to bake it for me. Etc.)
    4. No group of individuals has more rights than the individual and no group's rights (technically there are no "group rights" only the rights of the individuals the can be exercising in concert with one another...e.g., a group speaking as one...a group working together...a group owning property together) can override the rights of the individual (i.e., no mob rule or no two wolves and sheep deciding on dinner.)

    edited April 2016
  • Reply 116 of 187
    why-why- Posts: 305member
     

    Sounds like you really ought to read up on a topic before commenting on it. Then again, that’s par for the course for you.
    Oh no, I know all about it. Leviticus 20:13 "A man who lies with a man as one lies with a woman, they have both done an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon themselves."

    But in the previous chapter is says you should observe the Sabbath, you can't get a tattoo, you can't cut off your sideburns, you can't trim your beard, you can't wear clothes with wool and linen, you can't breed plants or animals etc. etc.

    My question is not where does it say it in the bible, but where does it say it in Christianity, since you guys clearly don't keep any of the commandments mentioned above
    londorsingularitylatifbp
  • Reply 117 of 187
    designrdesignr Posts: 499member
    why- said:
     

    Sounds like you really ought to read up on a topic before commenting on it. Then again, that’s par for the course for you.

    My question is not where does it say it in the bible, but where does it say it in Christianity...
    That seems like an odd way to phrase that. What does "in Christianity" mean exactly. The Christian faith has its basis in the Bible (new and old testament) and most specifically the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as to (at least in part) distinguish the Christian faith from the Jewish faith.


    leighr
  • Reply 118 of 187
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,509member
    designr said:
    flaneur said:
    It was a bogus yes or no question, prosecutor. The government, the instrument of our collective will, has evolved to the point to where slavery is prohibited, to where our former slaves have full rights to all the benefits of our society, to where women have equal standing with men, and to where people of any sexual or gender identity have equal rights to all others. 

    If you are part of a gay couple and you want my pizzaria to cater your wedding, then I follow the law, run my business properly, and cater the wedding. I also do it if you are an Aryan Nation couple, or fundamentalist pagans.

    "You" are not forcing me to do anything. "You" are not the issue. That you want to make yourself the issue "speaks volumes."
    Yes my use of "you" does speak volumes, as does your deference to the state. Routing the action through the state may appease your conscience and assuage your guilt but it doesn't change the fundamental nature of what's going on. It was not a "bogus question" but one that lays bare what is trying to be accomplished. I understand that doing say makes some people feel uncomfortable with the fact that they endorse such compulsion. But, oh well.

    I do find it ironic (though I suspect you have overlooked the irony) of talking about the government (which originally allowed and sanctioned slavery) and now (rightly, in alignment with basic, natural rights) prohibits it, while suggesting that a new kind of slavery should be enforced by same government.

    Wow.
    Wow yourself. Laws and government evolve as people evolve.
    londor
  • Reply 119 of 187
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,782member
    designr said:

    Every individual human being is born with the basic, foundational, core, natural rights to life, liberty and property.
    But in it's unrestricted form it runs amuck.

    1. Life : Don't kill anyone
    2. Liberty : I can do whatever the hell I want
    3. Property : Pursuit of happiness

    So working from the bottom to the top:

    I think I would be much happier if I had all your property, so since I can do whatever the hell I want, I believe I will threaten to beat you within an inch of your life if you don't give it to me. What? I didn't say I would kill you. You still have life. 

    That is why we have laws to prevent that sort of behavior.
    londor
  • Reply 120 of 187
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    volcan said:
    Though your rights may sometimes be referred to as God given, they are really only validated by "The State." 
    And when the state declares a right is God-given (or when a right supersedes the jurisdiction of the state), we get the US Constitution.

    volcan said:
    Indeed, because the Bible is not a legal document. You only have the rights spelled out in the Constitution, Bill of Rights and in this case, the Civil Rights Act.
    Not even remotely close. The Constitution does not grant you any rights. The Constitution states the rights that the state may not infringe. You always have the right to free expression, no matter what the state says. The Constitution is a document restricting the actions of the state, not the actions of the people.
    icoco3designr
Sign In or Register to comment.