• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

Lursa said:
Meaningless post where you didnt say anything....well, I knew you'd be confused...thanks for confirming it.

You couldnt refute it with actual discussion....:) (Amusing, your removing the bold below, lol...too confusing eh? Well, hypocrisy often is)
Click to expand...

And yet, you continue to post nothing. Well, at least you are easily amused.
 
Gina said:
That statement was made in general, not against you.
Click to expand...

....that doesn't really absolve you of assuming that those who oppose you are doing so from evil motives. The "you" and "me" in there can be general as well.

There is plenty of evidence on this board alone, that Christians who reject LGBT persons are doing so because they are sinners and then they add the part about hellfire. It's the kind of thing that LGBT individuals are likely to have heard. The Phelps are pretty widely distributing that sentiment as well. So when someone who is LGBT hears, even in the most polite language (if they are lucky) "We cannot in good faith provide you with service", that is what is behind it and what is communicated.
Click to expand...

1. Christians who reject LGBT persons are not doing so because the LGBT persons are sinners, but rather because the Christians are sinners. Christ died for us while we were yet sinners and came to seek the lost, not the found. The only time that Christians would be justified in "rejecting" a homosexual is the narrow case wherein A) he or she was a member of the church B) they were actively practicing and C) they refused on multiple occasions, after multiple counseling sessions and attempts to reach them, to repent. And even then, it's not rejecting the person, but rather their membership in an organization that is based around beliefs which that individual apparently does not share.

1.a. However, in today's intellectual climate where we are more likely to instinctively reject the doctrine of sin, there is widespread inability on the part of the non-Christian community to mistake the belief that homosexual activities are sinful with the rejection of homosexuals themselves.​

2. The Phelps are a perfect example of the people in #1, and no, did not "spread that sentiment widely", they acted wickedly and thus were widely rejected. Accusing the broader Christian community of being represented by the Phelps because you may have heard their language is akin to accusing the Pro-Life community of being represented by the people who argued that we should kill more black babies to cut down on crime and get rid of the "socially undesirable portions of our society".

3. It is still quite possible that the individual, no matter how soft the let down, will still feel hurt and rejected. That's human. Assigning the intent to make someone feel hurt and rejected in retrospect, however, due to that effect, is a logical fallacy.

3.a. As a strict rights issue, you do not have the right to have society order itself so that you do not feel rejected. Otherwise there would be quite a few women from High School (and College, come to think) who owe me restitution. :) You do have First Amendment Rights. Homosexuals can't use government to deny you the right to speak out or vote against SSM, and Christians can't use government to deny them the ability to advocate for SSM or petition for redress of grievances. The same level of protection extends to Religion - I cant' use the government to force you to participate in my belief system, and you shouldn't be able to use the government to force me to participate in yours.

The response is that we have already recognized that we can override First Amendment objections in order to create public accommodation laws - but look at the reasoning behind that move. We didn't create public accommodation laws during the Civil Rights era because blacks felt hurt and rejected (though they were), we did it because State Enforced Systemic Bans were denying blacks the ability to access goods and services. The Impact was enough to justify overriding the individual First Amendment Rights of those who would disagree. There are no such comparable bans today regarding homosexuals - the Impact on blacks in the 50s was that you couldn't travel because you couldn't stay in hotels. The Impact on homosexuals today is that you have to go to the baker down the street or call the next wedding planner on the google search page instead. That does not meet the threshold that we have established for justifying overriding people's right to First Amendment protections.​

Nobody enjoys being rejected, for any reason, but being rejected because of who you are, is hurtful and unkind. Nothing stops me from being kind to people patronizing my services, short of someone being a jerk to me and I have trouble being unkind then.
Click to expand...

:shrug: and you can refuse to take part in a ceremony in a kind way that is neither rude nor cruel.

If you were asked in your profession to do something that you found violated your deepest belief system, what would you do?
 
The crazies on the left, you know who you are, (we all know) have tried to pervert this law into an anti gay law, when of course it's not. My understanding is that it gives people in business the right to go to court and make their case as to why it is an infringement on their rights to be forced to do something that is against their own rights.

So, if a Christian couple goes to a gay baker and asks for a cake, and are refused, the baker must show why this is a violation and he's not just simply refusing because he is a bigot and hates Christians.

But, as usual, the left have distorted and mislead to the point that you have idiots on the left, like the governor of Connecticut, protesting this as they have virtually the same law on the books for years! This really exposes the lack of thought and the willingness to go ahead with anything as long as someone with a "D" next to their name said it.
 
cpwill said:
No, but a wedding ceremony is. And it doesn't have to be a religious ceremony to violate your faith.
Click to expand...

Many weddings are not religious and besides a baker is not taking part in it anyway. Cakes are part of the reception. There is nothing worse than faux indignation used to excuse hatred and bigotry.
 
Anthony60 said:
And yet, you continue to post nothing. Well, at least you are easily amused.
Click to expand...

This was/is my post and it contains a good deal of content relevant to this discussion:

Lursa said:
There's no difficulty with the signage...it serves both bigot and bigotee. It also protects both, even tho only one might desire it (those being informed before they have to deal with the bigots). The govt is actively protecting their right to association there, even if the business owners prefer to 'protect' their own right to association by associating with (personally informing) those it desires not to associate with. (yup, still funny).

Still confusing for you, I know but basically it means that the govt involvement protects both's rights, one side that would desire it and one side that may or may not. And I agree with the govt protecting people's rights.
Click to expand...

If you cannot form a reasonable response to it, then I suggest you stop bringing that fact to our attention, lol.
 
iguanaman said:
Many weddings are not religious and besides a baker is not taking part in it anyway. Cakes are part of the reception.
Click to expand...

:shrug: when you support the wedding with your products or services, you are taking part. Nor is it your job to define others faith. People have the right not to be forced to take part in ceremonies that violate their Religion, absent overwhelming need.

There is nothing worse than faux indignation used to excuse hatred and bigotry.
Click to expand...

That's funny. That's pretty much what I've been thinking.
 
cpwill said:
....that doesn't really absolve you of assuming that those who oppose you are doing so from evil motives. The "you" and "me" in there can be general as well.
Click to expand...

I stand by my assertion. If you wish to take offense though I have been clear I was making a general statement, that's not on me.

1. Christians who reject LGBT persons are not doing so because the LGBT persons are sinners, but rather because the Christians are sinners. Christ died for us while we were yet sinners and came to seek the lost, not the found. The only time that Christians would be justified in "rejecting" a homosexual is the narrow case wherein A) he or she was a member of the church B) they were actively practicing and C) they refused on multiple occasions, after multiple counseling sessions and attempts to reach them, to repent. And even then, it's not rejecting the person, but rather their membership in an organization that is based around beliefs which that individual apparently does not share.
Click to expand...
Despite the wordplay, this only supports my point.

A) You won't permit LGBT persons in church because of who they are.
B) You won't permit them to actively practice their faith, because of who they are.
C) You think they have something to repent for.

Any or all three of these are representations of what I said earlier and this is why I stand by it. Especially C). I won't derail the thread with a religious discussion. If a Christian refuses service in the most flowery terms, A-C are behind it. They are being denied service for who they are, because that is how they see themselves and millions of others who accept that LGBT is how they are born, see it. It's who they are and that is unkind/rude/cruel.


1.a. However, in today's intellectual climate where we are more likely to instinctively reject the doctrine of sin, there is widespread inability on the part of the non-Christian community to mistake the belief that homosexual activities are sinful with the rejection of homosexuals themselves.​
Click to expand...

There is no mistaking, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". They are being rejected by Christians, for being who they are, no matter the nuanced language.

2. The Phelps are a perfect example of the people in #1, and no, did not "spread that sentiment widely", they acted wickedly and thus were widely rejected. Accusing the broader Christian community of being represented by the Phelps because you may have heard their language is akin to accusing the Pro-Life community of being represented by the people who argued that we should kill more black babies to cut down on crime and get rid of the "socially undesirable portions of our society".
Click to expand...


I used Phelps as an example that there are those who shout ugly things about LGBT persons. Remove them from the discussion, there are still plenty on this board and in out in the world who say awful things about the LGBT community. Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberson partially blaming 9/11 on "gays and lesbians". I don't even have to go that far back to find hateful comments about LGBT persons. He makes them almost daily and with the controversy in Indiana, he's said them yesterday and today. I'll post them if you would like, but I don't want to take up the space.

Then there is The American Family Associate, a lobbying group, said this:
So what is this mark of the beast today? That’s easy. It’s the gay rainbow.

This is the rainbow Big Gay has stolen from the Bible and from the church and turned into its own twisted symbol of perversion.
Click to expand...
The Mark of the Beast is Here

They have a page of links to their views on homosexuality, including the belief that homosexuals are broken people.

I could go on and on, but these are people and groups that are not outliers in the Christian community, making these reprehensible statements about LGBT persons and repeating what you have said about "Loving the sinner, hating the sin" (paraphrasing).


Hit the character limit.
 
cpwill said:
.

3. It is still quite possible that the individual, no matter how soft the let down, will still feel hurt and rejected. That's human. Assigning the intent to make someone feel hurt and rejected in retrospect, however, due to that effect, is a logical fallacy.


3.a. As a strict rights issue, you do not have the right to have society order itself so that you do not feel rejected. Otherwise there would be quite a few women from High School (and College, come to think) who owe me restitution. :) You do have First Amendment Rights. Homosexuals can't use government to deny you the right to speak out or vote against SSM, and Christians can't use government to deny them the ability to advocate for SSM or petition for redress of grievances. The same level of protection extends to Religion - I cant' use the government to force you to participate in my belief system, and you shouldn't be able to use the government to force me to participate in yours.
​
Click to expand...


I wasn't saying that society has to order itself so that no one feels rejected. I was explaining in the least and most human terms what, "We in good conscience cannot provide service" means to an LGBT person, to refute the innocence of that statement. My first point in all of this was that some Christian business owners want the right to discriminate against people for being who they are. You minimized it by saying you didn't understand why they just couldn't move on to the next google result.


The response is that we have already recognized that we can override First Amendment objections in order to create public accommodation laws - but look at the reasoning behind that move. We didn't create public accommodation laws during the Civil Rights era because blacks felt hurt and rejected (though they were), we did it because State Enforced Systemic Bans were denying blacks the ability to access goods and services. The Impact was enough to justify overriding the individual First Amendment Rights of those who would disagree. There are no such comparable bans today regarding homosexuals - the Impact on blacks in the 50s was that you couldn't travel because you couldn't stay in hotels. The Impact on homosexuals today is that you have to go to the baker down the street or call the next wedding planner on the google search page instead. That does not meet the threshold that we have established for justifying overriding people's right to First Amendment protections.



:shrug: and you can refuse to take part in a ceremony in a kind way that is neither rude nor cruel.

If you were asked in your profession to do something that you found violated your deepest belief system, what would you do?
Click to expand...

Cakes and photography are only examples. I don't see how either violates one's religious conscience. When any business is permitted to discriminate against an individual for their religious beliefs, then any service or product can be denied on that basis. And for small town people, there may not be alternatives.​
 
Gina said:
There is no mistaking, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". They are being rejected by Christians, for being who they are, no matter the nuanced language.
Click to expand...

IMO it is a conscious and hypocritical choice for 99% of those claiming they are doing any type of discrimination based on religious belief.

Because how many bakers or photographers refuse to bake cakes or take pics of the weddings of adulterers? Or fornicators? Because almost everyone sleeps with their fiances before the wedding, even lives with them these days. And I'm sure there are many cases, esp. in small towns, where these service providers are aware of cheaters.

Very very few who believe that these are very serious sins, on par (according to the Bible) with homosexuality are refusing service to the other sinners. But they are CHOOSING to refuse service only to the gay "sinners."
 
Gina said:
I wasn't saying that society has to order itself so that no one feels rejected. I was explaining in the least and most human terms what, "We in good conscience cannot provide service" means to an LGBT person, to refute the innocence of that statement
Click to expand...

A hearer's emotional reaction to a statement =/= the intent of the speaker. That sentence can indeed be spoken in all innocence, regardless of how it is taken.

My first point in all of this was that some Christian business owners want the right to discriminate against people for being who they are
Click to expand...

For example, if I were to be offended by this statement, and argue that you are demonizing Christians, that you are expressing rejection and degradation towards people of my faith.

That wouldn't actually mean that you are guilty of trying to demonize and degrade Christians.

Christian Business owners are not seeking "the right to discriminate against people who are gay". They are seeking not to be punished for not taking part in their wedding celebrations.

You minimized it by saying you didn't understand why they just couldn't move on to the next google result.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you'll read that first sentence for Par 3 again, you'll note that I agreed with you that it could be upsetting and hurt. But having to call the next person on the list is the impact, that is the burden that they are actually put under. That burden does not justify trampling people's religious beliefs.

Cakes and photography are only examples. I don't see how either violates one's religious conscience.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because it's not violating yours. I myself don't really see what the Muslim thing about pork is. But that doesn't mean that because I don't "get" it, I have the right to force them to handle it because I want a sandwich.

When any business is permitted to discriminate against an individual for their religious beliefs, then any service or product can be denied on that basis. And for small town people, there may not be alternatives.
Click to expand...

:shrug: then that would be part of the Strict Scrutiny test being applied. You would have to demonstrate that A) yes, the requested good or service really does violate your religious faith (and "because I say so" has not, to my knowledge, ever held up in a US court, which tends to actually inspect the religion being claimed) and B) denial of this particular service/good provider does not deny the individual the ability to access that good or service. Which is, after all, all this law did.
 
Gina said:
I stand by my assertion. If you wish to take offense though I have been clear I was making a general statement, that's not on me.
Click to expand...

:( Then you are acting the bigot, smearing entire groups of people, and are no better than those you oppose. I don't personally take offense, but it is sad - I've seen you think and write enough to know that you are smarter than to take those kind of intellectual shortcuts.

Despite the wordplay, this only supports my point.

A) You won't permit LGBT persons in church because of who they are.
Click to expand...

That is not true. Homosexuals who refuse to repent and prove hardened to correction are denied membership. Anyone is welcome in Church. My little sister goes to church with me and visa versa whenever we can get together, though we naturally prefer different congregations :).

But that is true of any belief-based organization. If you are a board member of NARAL and you come out in public to declare that Abortion is murder, abortionists need to go to prison, and abortion supporters are the new Holocaust supporters, well, NARAL will probably be revoking your ability to speak on their behalf fairly quickly.

B) You won't permit them to actively practice their faith, because of who they are.
Click to expand...

They cannot be a member of a belief-based organization if they refuse the beliefs around which the organization is based.

C) You think they have something to repent for.
Click to expand...

Yes and that makes them just like me. If I refused to repent of (for example) feeding an addiction to pornography, or being verbally abusive to others, or sleeping with my mother, then the result (either repentance and acceptance, or, after multiple intercessions, loss of membership) would equally apply to me.

Any or all three of these are representations of what I said earlier and this is why I stand by it. Especially C). I won't derail the thread with a religious discussion. If a Christian refuses service in the most flowery terms, A-C are behind it.
Click to expand...

C is. But participation in, and indeed, enablement of, homosexual weddings would be sinful for the Christian - they would be something requiring repentance. Jesus was pretty hard on those who took the easy way out and let others suffer for it.

They are being denied service for who they are
Click to expand...

No they are not. No one is saying "gays can't eat here" or "gays can't get their automobile serviced here". Christians are simply refusing to take part in their weddings.

It's who they are and that is unkind/rude/cruel.
Click to expand...

Again, you are ascribing opposition to your motives to those who oppose your means. It's no more supportable than the claim that the only reason you take the position you do is because you are bigoted against Christians and want to stamp Christianity out of the public space.

There is no mistaking, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". They are being rejected by Christians, for being who they are, no matter the nuanced language.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, this is precisely the enactment of the Love The Sinner Hate The Sin rule. You don't hate a sin by celebrating it, and you don't love a sinner by enabling them.

I used Phelps as an example that there are those who shout ugly things about LGBT persons. Remove them from the discussion, there are still plenty on this board and in out in the world who say awful things about the LGBT community
Click to expand...

Sure, and there are plenty of low-wattage folks on the other side who say awful things about the Christian community.

Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberson partially blaming 9/11 on "gays and lesbians".
Click to expand...

I know you are not going to be able to understand this, but, while I agree that was a completely bonkers argument, it does not actually require hatred to make that statement. They were attempting to apply a Deuteronomistic structure to a calamity.

I'll post them if you would like, but I don't want to take up the space.
Click to expand...

:shrug: you could, but you haven't demonstrated an ability/willingness to differentiate between "disagreement" and "hate" on this issue. On the contrary - you have (see first item) rather declared that you do not intend to differentiate.

The American Family Associate, a lobbying group, said this:

The Mark of the Beast is Here
Click to expand...

:lol: I had no idea they had said this. That is going into a project I am working on - what a beautiful example of hyperbolic stupidity. thank you for that :)

They have a page of links to their views on homosexuality, including the belief that homosexuals are broken people.
Click to expand...

Well, that part is true. But, again, understand that, to a Christian, to say that someone is "broken" is merely to say that they are a sinner, which is to say, they are human.
 
This is why having "protected classes" flies in the face of "equal protect under the law".
 
Gina said:
I wasn't saying that society has to order itself so that no one feels rejected.
Click to expand...

On reflection, if you don't mind, then what does present - in your mind - justification for overriding people's Rights of Conscience. The "hurt and rejected" standard seemed to be pretty blatantly the one you were raising.
 
cpwill said:
On reflection, if you don't mind, then what does present - in your mind - justification for overriding people's Rights of Conscience. The "hurt and rejected" standard seemed to be pretty blatantly the one you were raising.
Click to expand...

Racists could also make this claim. They can claim a sincere belief that blacks are lesser and they should not be forced to associate with them. This was also supported by some religious leaders thru misinterpretations (IMO) of the Bible. In your opinion, should racists be allowed to refuse service to a race(s) of their choosing? And btw, I could definitely imagine a black business owner choosing to (or wanting to) refuse service to white people as well.

If someone chooses to open a public business, they should be aware of the laws they must comply with. If they disagree with them, then they should find another line of work that will not involve a conflict of conscience.

I understand that SSM is something new that some business owners may not have taken into consideration, but going forward, there should be no question that if you have a business license from the state, you must comply with it. If that includes sexual orientation, as it does in some states, then the business owner must comply.
 
j-mac said:
This is why having "protected classes" flies in the face of "equal protect under the law".
Click to expand...

I proposed this earlier, as an interesting experiment. What do you think?

Lursa said:
As I just wrote, the people...and larger organizations...spoke out and indicated they would remove their business and other activities perhaps, from the state.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if people were indeed given license to discriminate against serving the people they felt they should not have to do business with.

They would apply for a different type of business license and then be required to post the group(s) they do not want to serve in a publicly visible place, just like 'no shoes, no shirt, no service.' Like, "we dont serve women here.' Or 'we dont serve Jews here." Or 'we dont serve gays here.' Or 'we dont serve blacks here.'

That would be perfectly legal with that type of business license. Then we could see if society in general would support these businesses or not. The fewer businesses with similar services/products in competition in an area would affect this as well but I'd be willing to bet people would go out of their way to avoid such businesses if they disagreed with what was posted. I know I would. I do it now regarding 'no guns allowed' signs even when not carrying.
Click to expand...
 
If a business owner did not want to perform some service for a homosexual, I doubt a state RFRA would be the strongest basis for denying the service. The Free Exercise Clause is probably not the most applicable part of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court decisions on government-compelled speech--Barnette, Tornillo, Wooley, Hurley--suggest the freedom of speech is a better fit, especially if the service involves expressive speech.

The freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak. Speech, for First Amendment purposes, includes all sorts of symbolic expression--for example, flag-burning, cross-burning, or wearing a T-shirt in court that says "F*** the Draft." A law or other government action violates that freedom when it compels a person to propound points of view he does not agree with. The private persons who cater a same-sex wedding, or rent rooms to its guests, or transport them in a limo, are not really expressing any celebration of that wedding by what they do. But where active, creative expression is involved, it may be a different story.

A public accommodations law that required a person to make an artistic presentation of photographs of a same-sex wedding could easily be seen as unconstitutional compulsion of speech. And although a bakery could probably not refuse to sell an undecorated cake for that wedding, it is far less clear that the bakers could be forced to inscribe the cake with words or symbols that propounded or celebrated views they did not agree with.

For the same reason, I think a law that required the owners of a wedding chapel to let it be used for a same-sex ceremony--an expression of celebration of same-sex marriage--would probably be unconstitutional. These quotations are from Justice Powell's concurring opinion in Pruneyard Shopping Center:

"A person who has merely invited the public onto his property for commercial purposes cannot fairly be said to have relinquished his right to decline to be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view he finds unacceptable."

"A property owner also may be faced with speakers who wish to use his premises as a platform for views that he finds morally repugnant. Numerous examples come to mind. A minority-owned business confronted with leaflet distributors from the American Nazi Party or the Ku Klux Klan, a church-operated enterprise asked to host demonstrations in favor of abortion, or a union compelled to supply a forum to right-to-work advocates could be placed in an intolerable position if state law requires it to make its private property available to anyone who wishes to speak." (all italics mine)
 
Lursa said:
Racists could also make this claim. They can claim a sincere belief that blacks are lesser and they should not be forced to associate with them. This was also supported by some religious leaders thru misinterpretations (IMO) of the Bible. In your opinion, should racists be allowed to refuse service to a race(s) of their choosing? And btw, I could definitely imagine a black business owner choosing to (or wanting to) refuse service to white people as well.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out to you (and to which you did not directly respond) in Post 354, the reason we allowed public accommodation laws to override Rights of Conscience objections in the Civil Rights Era was because the impact was to deny blacks access to entire industries. That is not the impact with homosexual marriages due to the breadth of options available to them and the lack of state enforcement of banning codes, which I pointed out to you, and which you then used to accuse me of "minimizing" by shifting that language to an entirely different portion of my post.

If someone chooses to open a public business, they should be aware of the laws they must comply with. If they disagree with them, then they should find another line of work that will not involve a conflict of conscience.
Click to expand...

True. And if the laws are wrong, then they should practice civil disobedience. There were white business owners in South Africa, for example, who bravely ignored Apartheid, just as there were businesses in the South who ignored Jim Crow. And if the laws violate the First Amendments and our Rights of Conscience, then we should stand and defend them.

But your effect here is the exact same one that we used to justify overriding First Amendment rights during the Civil Rights Era - you are effectively banning Christians from entire industries. :(


But I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question. What does present - in your mind - justification for overriding people's Rights of Conscience? The "hurt and rejected" standard seemed to be pretty blatantly the one you were raising.
 
cpwill said:
As I pointed out to you (and to which you did not directly respond) in Post 354, the reason we allowed public accommodation laws to override Rights of Conscience objections in the Civil Rights Era was because the impact was to deny blacks access to entire industries. That is not the impact with homosexual marriages due to the breadth of options available to them and the lack of state enforcement of banning codes, which I pointed out to you, and which you then used to accuse me of "minimizing" by shifting that language to an entirely different portion of my post.



True. And if the laws are wrong, then they should practice civil disobedience. There were white business owners in South Africa, for example, who bravely ignored Apartheid, just as there were businesses in the South who ignored Jim Crow. And if the laws violate the First Amendments and our Rights of Conscience, then we should stand and defend them.

But your effect here is the exact same one that we used to justify overriding First Amendment rights during the Civil Rights Era - you are effectively banning Christians from entire industries. :(


But I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question. What does present - in your mind - justification for overriding people's Rights of Conscience? The "hurt and rejected" standard seemed to be pretty blatantly the one you were raising.
Click to expand...

My answer to your question is that it's obvious that people pick and choose selectively what they feel is objectionable (post 361)....in their own best interests, not conscience. And they do have a choice. If they feel a need so strongly that they must provide that service, then maybe they need to look at non-profit status, doing it for free, making it a 'club,' etc.

And my position on this, in the post you responded to, was based on a moral position, not law. I think we are all disputing the fairness of the laws. And I reject your minimization of the effects on gays...you imply their needs and their equal treatment are not as important as blacks. I disagree and their overall treatment in our society is actually, IMO, what is really paramount here.
 
Lursa said:
My answer to your question is that it's obvious that people pick and choose selectively what they feel is objectionable....in their own best interests, not conscience
Click to expand...

If that is the case (and I do not think it is) then there would be no refusal to service gay weddings because that would represent a loss of profit.

And they do have a choice.
Click to expand...

Sort of. They can either violate their consciences, or be punished by the state.

Which is not a new situation for Christians, but rather an old one that Christians in American haven't had to worry much about lately. :)

If they feel a need so strongly that they must provide that service, then maybe they need to look at non-profit status, doing it for free, making it a 'club,' etc.
Click to expand...

People have a right to make a living.

And my position on this, in the post you responded to, was based on a moral position, not law. I think we are all disputing the fairness of the laws.
Click to expand...

So it's a "should" rather than a "must". All right. Legally what do you think the threshold should be at which point we forcibly override individual rights of conscience?

And I reject your minimization of the effects on gays...you imply their needs and their equal treatment are not as important as blacks.
Click to expand...

That is not correct. I am saying that the impact of allowing individual businesses not to participate in gay weddings is not the equivalent of the impacts of Jim Crow on Blacks.
 
cpwill said:
If that is the case (and I do not think it is) then there would be no refusal to service gay weddings because that would represent a loss of profit.
Click to expand...

I said, in response to your using 'conscience' and the fact that this is mostly regarding religious objections, that it was selective. Right now, selecting against gays isnt economically painful....but may be in the future. As will publicity that a business will discriminate against them.

Wanting to discriminate....bigotry against a particular class...does overcome $$$. Otherwise Jim Crow wouldnt have lasted so long and ultimately needed to be overturned by the govt. Bigotry, phobias, hate, offense, dislike....these are not synonymous with 'beliefs' and 'conscience.'
 
cpwill said:
So it's a "should" rather than a "must". All right. Legally what do you think the threshold should be at which point we forcibly override individual rights of conscience?
Click to expand...

Morality is not a black and white thing. It's not simple (often) and it's not easy.

For this topic, you comply with the state's laws and guidelines for businesses and you dont discriminate.

That is 'more moral' IMO, the better and most equal treatment of people and best for society as well.

No one is bound to open a business and no one is entitled to. There are other ways to make a living and I even offered options in the last post. We all make difficult decisions when we choose to follow our consciences.....sometimes the effects on us are negative. That is a choice we make.
 
Lursa said:
I said, in response to your using 'conscience' and the fact that this is mostly regarding religious objections, that it was selective. Right now, selecting against gays isnt economically painful....but may be in the future. As will publicity that a business will discriminate against them.
Click to expand...

:shrug: so be it. People have the right also to forego profit in order to serve God rather than money. Frankly, given the swiftness with which the activist left descends in wrath against any viable target who dares to dissent, I rather think that you are projecting into the future a reality today. We are currently in a situation where refusing to take part in gay weddings makes one a target.

Wanting to discriminate....bigotry against a particular class...does overcome $$$ Otherwise Jim Crow wouldnt have lasted so long and ultimately needed to be overturned by the govt.
Click to expand...

Actually Jim Crow lasted as long as it did because it was enforced by the government. Economic pressure pushed many businesses to attempt to ignore or work around it's restrictions, and Jim Crow was first enshrined into law because public accommodations were serving blacks and whites, and the whites objected. Thomas Sowell has done some excellent work on this in his book Basic Economics if the topic interests you.

Bigotry, phobias, hate, offense, dislike....these are not synonymous with 'beliefs' and 'conscience.'
Click to expand...

I agree. Where you go wrong is that you are simply conflating the latter for the former. :)
 
Lursa said:
Morality is not a black and white thing. It's not simple (often) and it's not easy.

For this topic, you comply with the state's laws and guidelines for businesses and you dont discriminate.

That is 'more moral' IMO, the better and most equal treatment of people and best for society as well.

No one is bound to open a business and no one is entitled to.... We all make difficult decisions when we choose to follow our consciences.....sometimes the effects on us are negative. That is a choice we make.
Click to expand...

All you are answering is "the law is the law", as a standard. But if your standard for what should be the law is the law itself, then why protest against the Indiana law?

There are other ways to make a living and I even offered options in the last post.
Click to expand...

You offered "doing it for free". :roll:


What do you do for a living, Gina?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom