• 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!

Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?[W:118]

Should the State force Sally to be ****'d by white men?


  • Total voters
    15
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

I understand that people need protection from certain things, but it's a matter of where we draw the line. What happens in our society is that the "protected group of the moment" gets all the attention, yet the basic issue of where the line gets drawn never gets addressed. In the case of the OP, you would draw the line at a completely different point than in the case of the bakery. I understand that there needs to be some measure of latitude in how the law is applied, but even that should be defined so that the law gets applied equitably to all. So let's work towards a solution that both protects people and treats them consistently and equitably instead of basing the application of the law on how we feel about the person it it being applied to.

I have no argument with that. But I can tell you that if someone holds as a basic matter of faith, that natural born gay people living according to their born sexual orientation, are living in sin, and as such they are precluded from serving them, somebodies always going to be offended, and this will go back and forth as one group gaines recognition over the other, perpetually.
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here or why you quoted me. My response, to the author of the OP, was in connection to a comment he posted prior to your first post in the thread. My involvement in the thread after that initial comment was only to respond again to a comment the author of the OP addressed my way. I don't believe I engage in a discussion with any other poster in the thread.

I quoted you because he was commenting on your post and I had posted a very similar thing early in the thread. It was directed to the OP, not you. Sorry if that wasnt clear.
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

I have no argument with that. But I can tell you that if someone holds as a basic matter of faith, that natural born gay people living according to their born sexual orientation, are living in sin, and as such they are precluded from serving them, somebodies always going to be offended, and this will go back and forth as one group gaines recognition over the other, perpetually.

That's why the law needs to be fixed, not tossed or allowed to continue as a gray area. But no one wants to do push for that, they just want things to go the way that supports their ideology. Tiem to throw out the ideology and start getting back to being a nation of laws and not vague regulations that can be interpreted however people want them to be.
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

It's not even possible if the Jewish baker doesn't stock the item that the Muslim is seeking. Leavening being off his premises during Passover week. He'll need to buy flat bread, Matzo! The Jewish baker wouldn't be selling leavened products to another Jew or Christian or atheist during that week either. So your scenario has no discriminating aspect to it.

It would if the Muslim declared he was refused service based on the bakery owners religious views.
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

That's why the law needs to be fixed, not tossed or allowed to continue as a gray area. But no one wants to do push for that, they just want things to go the way that supports their ideology. Tiem to throw out the ideology and start getting back to being a nation of laws and not vague regulations that can be interpreted however people want them to be.

No, it's discriminating ideology that needs to be fixed. Gay people have been around far longer than Christians, religions come and go. Unless there are laws against discrimination, it won't go away. If we want to allow Christians to discriminate against the LGBT, then we aren't making progress.
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

It would if the Muslim declared he was refused service based on the bakery owners religious views.

No, it wouldn't. The baker in your scenario isn't refusing to sell a product that isn't even on his shelf because the patron is a Muslim.
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

Only the christian victimhood complex could come up with such insane hyperbole. Selling a cake to a homosexual is not the same thing as being forced to have sex with someone. I wish that you had at least an ounce of shame and you should be embarrassed for making such a comparison.

it is perfectly valid analogy as sex is legal commerce in parts of Nevada.

that you are bothered by the analogy says more about your position then it does the analogy

and just so you know - forcing a company that produces products to serve a segment they don't want is very similar to forcing a company that provides a service to serve a segment they don't want.
 
Last edited:
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

There's usually exceptions to every rule. Dreaming up hypothetical gotcha scenarios to distract from real time discrimination is just that.

Exceptions to rules must have their own rules. For example, we allow freedom of association. In order to defeat Jim Crow, we created an exception to that freedom, justified by the burden being born by African Americans of a systemic social and state-enforced system of discrimination. Otherwise everything is an "exception".
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

And what you are doing is complaining that I am not answering the question of whether I have stopped beating my wife with a yes or no answer

That is incorrect. The "have you stopped beating your wife" question is one that presupposes your guilt. This is a question on whether or not or to what degree you actually believe in overriding individual rights in the name of enforcing non-discrimination.

But you don't want to answer the question, because the moral answer (no one should be forced to have sex with another - that's rape - and you shouldn't be punished in lieu of getting raped, either) is obviously contradictory to the argument that you have settled yourself into.

You aren't willing to draw the line at which point it is right to override individual liberties in the area of non-discrimination. It seems as though you aren't coming to this question from a position of actual application of beliefs about conflicting rights, but rather a sense that:

1387731302624.jpg


You empathize with the gay couple, but not with the Christian business owner. You empathize with the woman, but not with the john. Hence, conflicting positions, hence, refusal to address the issue, hence, attempts to shift to something else.




Watch, I can demonstrate it: Let us assume that we are in a scenario where a provision of sex services is indeed a legal public accommodation. In that scenario, do you believe that the state should force Sally to relive her trauma by forcing her to allow white men to sexually penetrate her against her will, or punish her for not doing so?
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

And how is this substantially different?

Because the question is not "What should Sally do?", but rather, "What should the State do?". If Sally refuses, should the state force her, or punish her for refusing to be forced?


It's a painful question. The equivalent (where the tables are turned) might be the pro-choice point that, if pro-lifers really believed their position, then it seems they should be additionally in favor of punishing women who (in a hypothetical world where the pro-life movement has won) get illegal abortions. That's an uncomfortable thing to say, and consistency feels abusive/mean because we can all easily imagine women in that position that we would sympathize with, but the pro-choice movement is right to force the pro-life movement to come to grips with the question and answer honestly.
 
Last edited:
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

That is incorrect. The "have you stopped beating your wife" question is one that presupposes your guilt. This is a question on whether or not or to what degree you actually believe in overriding individual rights in the name of enforcing non-discrimination.

But you don't want to answer the question, because the moral answer (no one should be forced to have sex with another - that's rape - and you shouldn't be punished in lieu of getting raped, either) is obviously contradictory to the argument that you have settled yourself into.

You aren't willing to draw the line at which point it is right to override individual liberties in the area of non-discrimination. It seems as though you aren't coming to this question from a position of actual application of beliefs about conflicting rights, but rather a sense that:

You empathize with the gay couple, but not with the Christian business owner. You empathize with the woman, but not with the john. Hence, conflicting positions, hence, refusal to address the issue, hence, attempts to shift to something else.




Watch, I can demonstrate it: Let us assume that we are in a scenario where a provision of sex services is indeed a legal public accommodation. In that scenario, do you believe that the state should force Sally to relive her trauma by forcing her to allow white men to sexually penetrate her against her will, or punish her for not doing so?

And you continue to run from the point I am making in answering your question. Why can you not respond to the points made when answering your question?
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

Because the question is not "What should Sally do?", but rather, "What should the State do?". If Sally refuses, should the state force her, or punish her for refusing to be forced?

What part of the bold was not clear, regarding what the state should do (IMO)?

If Sally cannot reasonably serve a substantial part of the public, she should not own or be working in a public business where that is required.

Just like the Muslim woman at Target who did not want to handle pork. Then she should not have taken that job.

If Sally will not comply with the business regulations of the state, her license for that business should be revoked or her boss should fire her. Or stick her in the office to do paperwork or other tasks required for that business.
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

And you continue to run from the point I am making in answering your question. Why can you not respond to the points made when answering your question?

I did - I pointed out that they are irrelevant and attempts to shift away from the actual issue under review.

That's why I offered you a chance to answer a hypothetical in which your objections were met - in which the points you made were given, integrated, and we were instead in a scenario where prostitutes were legally declared public accommodations.

:) and, as I figured you would, you continue to refuse to answer.
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

The equivalent (where the tables are turned) might be the pro-choice point that, if pro-lifers really believed their position, then it seems they should be additionally in favor of punishing women who (in a hypothetical world where the pro-life movement has won) get illegal abortions. That's an uncomfortable thing to say, and consistency feels abusive/mean because we can all easily imagine women in that position that we would sympathize with, but the pro-choice movement is right to force the pro-life movement to come to grips with the question and answer honestly.

Many pro-life supporters clearly state they would want women punished...by the law or by pain and death...for having abortions, legal or not.

Some clearly state that death and/or suffering is deserved, and that prison or other gross violations of their rights are justified.

IMO, if you are willing to vote for restrictions on abortion (or candidates that will push for such), you support legal penalties for women who have illegal abortions. Otherwise, what is the point of legal restrictions?
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

What part of the bold was not clear, regarding what the state should do (IMO)?

The part that was not clear was..... the part where I missed that. :) Mea Culpa. Do you think the state should seek punitive action?
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

Many pro-life supporters clearly state they would want women punished...by the law or by pain and death...for having abortions, legal or not.

They clearly state that death is deserved, and that prison or other gross violations of their rights are justified.

IMO, if you are willing to vote for restrictions on abortion (or candidates that will push for such), you support legal penalties for women who have illegal abortions. Otherwise, what is the point of legal restrictions?

"Many" is an interesting word. It can be used to subtly indicate "large percentages of" or "majorities", without actually putting one on the hook for defending such a claim. Do you have any polling data on that question?
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

The part that was not clear was..... the part where I missed that. :) Mea Culpa. Do you think the state should seek punitive action?

SHe's not committing a crime. So the revocation of her ability to participate in that business is appropriate punitive action. Seems like that's what they'd do in most other businesses.
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

SHe's not committing a crime. So the revocation of her ability to participate in that business is appropriate punitive action. Seems like that's what they'd do in most other businesses.

:shrug: the bakery in Colorado, for example, is facing a fine of $50,000 per person.
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

"Many" is an interesting word. It can be used to subtly indicate "large percentages of" or "majorities", without actually putting one on the hook for defending such a claim. Do you have any polling data on that question?

No, just a sampling of the many pro-life posters here on the forum (altho such data may exist, I've just never looked for it).

I can write you a list of those that have but it would be against forum policy. Would you like it pm'd?(some are supposedly 'good Christians' too)

And you didnt answer the question: what is the point of legal restrictions on abortion if there is no legal consequence?
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

No, just a sampling of the many pro-life posters here on the forum (altho such data may exist, I've just never looked for it).

I can write you a list of those that have but it would be against forum policy. Would you like it pm'd?(some are supposedly 'good Christians' too)

Nah. I can see the argument for it, legally, in that scenario, it should be treated like any other infanticide.

And you didnt answer the question: what is the point of legal restrictions on abortion if there is no legal consequence?

I agree there should be some - Sorry, I thought the question was rhetorical.
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

No, it wouldn't. The baker in your scenario isn't refusing to sell a product that isn't even on his shelf because the patron is a Muslim.

Come on. At any other time it's on the shelf. How about the Muslim comes in two weeks earlier and wants the bakery to cater their Muslim wedding during Passover?

I think you get the point.
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

:shrug: the bakery in Colorado, for example, is facing a fine of $50,000 per person.

I guess they could do that too. Doesnt change the substance of my response. It is punitive. And drastically (I imagine) affects their ability to do business. How many fines before the state does revoke that bakery's business license or they go out of business? It's just a matter of degree.
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

Come on. At any other time it's on the shelf. How about the Muslim comes in two weeks earlier and wants the bakery to cater their Muslim wedding during Passover?

I think you get the point.

No! I don't get the point, because, not only wouldn't they cater during Passover to the Muslim, they wouldn't do it for the gay guy, the straight guy, the Christian, the Hindu, the Jew or the atheist. You'll need to dream up another gotcha hypothetical to distract from the real time discrimination that Christians are projecting on the LGBT community.
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

And here comes the EXACT kind of defensiveness that I have grown used to from you conservative Christians. Like clockwork.
I'm not a conservative christian... but let's see where your steortyping goes from here.

You know why you (plural) are so defensive? Because you. Have. No. Faith. You may have belief, but you do not have faith. If you had faith in God as described by the Bible and interpreted by most Christian denominations, if you had faith in whom you profess to be Lord of the Universe, who could instantly knock the planet Earth halfway across the galaxy in a blink of an eye, you would be able to do what Jesus did and shrug everything off your shoulders, because God would take care of us in the end. But you rely on your own powers, not God's powers, to boost yourselves up. You have no faith.
wow, that was a fine performance... exactly none of it makes one damned bit of sense, but you delivered your idiocy flawlessly.

Oh, and another thing. You just gave false testimony against your neighbor. You just broke the Ninth Commandment. Now why the hell should we listen to someone who can't even follow his own rules, let alone try to make laws and statutes out of those rules?
not sure what you are talking about.... but I will say that i would no more want christian fundamentalists running this country than loudmouth liberal bigots... though I won't deny either a seat at the table

No faith, and full of lies. The Bible is very clear as to what happens to people with those attributes.
if you had read the bible, you would understand that such judgements won't come from you or any other human... you have no standing to judge the faith of anyone else... you have the arrogance and the ignorance, but no standing.



Your question was either a meaningless hypothetical or a strawman. I answered them already with questions of my own; anyone whose mind is open would have instantly recognized that my questions were rhetorical. Geez you conservative Christians are defensive..

... and you have still failed to answer the question....it's very telling for you to outright refuse to do so.

and again, I'm not a conservative christian.
 
Re: Addendum to RFRA - should a prostitute be forced to have sex with whites?

I'm not a conservative christian... but let's see where your steortyping goes from here.

wow, that was a fine performance... exactly none of it makes one damned bit of sense, but you delivered your idiocy flawlessly.

not sure what you are talking about.... but I will say that i would no more want christian fundamentalists running this country than loudmouth liberal bigots... though I won't deny either a seat at the table

if you had read the bible, you would understand that such judgements won't come from you or any other human... you have no standing to judge the faith of anyone else... you have the arrogance and the ignorance, but no standing.





... and you have still failed to answer the question....it's very telling for you to outright refuse to do so.

and again, I'm not a conservative christian.

Conservative Christian, Evangelical Christian, Whatever Christian. You are being spectacularly defensive, something that conservative Christians are well-known for. So whatever expedient title of the type of Christian you wish to claim to be cannot cover up your defensiveness. And you know what? Of all the religions whose followers I have engaged in debate--which, specifically, are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--Christians are by far the most defensive of these three. It's not even close. Jews and Muslims are SOOOO much better than you guys in this regard. I wonder why that is, Thrilla?

Go back and reread my accusation of your lack of faith. I stand by what I said and refuse to apologize for it. It needs no clarification. You just didn't like it because it is true and because you are defensive.

By the way. How do you feel about the steady decline in church membership in America over the last few decades?
 
Back
Top Bottom