• 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!

Students for religious freedom, except when it comes to Christians

He asks students if a Muslim singer is asked to perform in a Christian church should be able to opt out. Of course they say. How about a Christian florist not working for a same sex wedding?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8wxl35-Img


Now, I'm not again same sex marriage or anything like that. I think it's interesting how they don't know how to answer when faced with the hypocrisy of the premise.

Well, there is only one reason a Muslim singer can refuse a Christian church gig, and that is if he is then also forced to participate in a religious service at that church or if he is supposed to sing Christian hymns. If not, if he is just the wedding singer after the religious service and he is supposed to sing classic pop tunes or even Arabic love songs, than I do not see a valid reason for him to refuse.
 
The key difference is that you're talking about discriminating on the basis of the venue and discrimination on the basis of the aspects or attributes of a person. Are you trying to argue that venues, i.e. buildings should have rights?
Nice try there. I guess that you are saying that inanimate objects such as buildings (which I would agree don't have rights) can be discriminated against despite being devoid of any religion, race, ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation, political view, etc.
You support hate for no reasons but oppose it for a reason?
You do have support. The Washington Post gave it's approval for vandalism on a Trump golf course.
 
I have no idea. Why does that matter?
Very much so. The assertion is that the people he interviewed (or at least the subset he chose to show) gave inconsistent answers to the different questions because of the religion of the characters involved but because they were also quite different scenarios with many other elements and factors, it isn’t possible to prove that religion specifically and alone was the cause of the different responses.

I suspect that asking some of them about a Christian singer asked to perform at a mosque and a Muslim florist refusing to serve for a same-sex wedding would give a different balance of answers that doesn’t simply go against the Christian but support the Muslim.

All of that is before we even get to the classic problems (or methods) of this type of video where heavy editing and selective use of all of the responses they will have received could be used to support pretty much any conclusion you wish to come up with.
 
Back
Top Bottom