06 Apr 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadEthnicity cannot be equated with homosexuality. It is bigotry to refuse service because of race, but the term bigotry cannot be made to apply to those who discriminate against someone with a degenerative moral condition.
Do you support the right of racists who believe their racism is religiously inspired to not serve black people in their shops?
Hint: this is a yes or no answer.
The next thing you know we'll be forced to allow pedophiles to molest children because if we don't we'll be labeled bigots. Homosexuality is a repugnant abomination and morally filthy act. And whether or not anyone likes the sound of that it's my right to say so and to discriminate against the practice of homosexuality in the public domain.
It has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with morality.
06 Apr 16
Originally posted by josephwPedophiles molesting children is illegal. Do you think homosexual acts should be illegal too?
The next thing you know we'll be forced to allow pedophiles to molest children because if we don't we'll be labeled bigots. Homosexuality is a repugnant abomination and morally filthy act.
06 Apr 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, I don't think.
selling a cream cake to someone that is gay is vastly different from being coerced to issue them with a marriage license, yah think!
In the United States, at least, we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Who are you to claim that ANY two people cannot be married? You can claim to be a bigot all day long, but you cannot claim to deny people their basic human rights. There is no difference between this and denying a marriage license to a biracial couple. Because the ONLY people who would deny them this basic human right are bigots, plain and simple. And no, it's not "okay" to be a bigot. You cannot deny this basic human right to anybody. Claiming it goes against your religion is just seeking for your bigotry to be accepted. And no, I don't have to accept it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf someone has a job involving issuing marriage licences to those who are legally entitled to be married, surely you cannot allow them to "exercise their consciences" in a way that means they refuse to do the job for which they are employed? Surely, "the dictates of conscience" in such a situation should manifest themselves in their resignation?
You are discriminating against people exercising their moral and religious beliefs if you do not allow them to exercise their consciences in harmony with those religious beliefs. No one should be compelled to act against the dictates of conscience.
06 Apr 16
Originally posted by sonhouseI was expecting this to be an April Fool's Gag.
Gives the legal right for people to refuse to serve or service LGBT people, like weddings, funerals, boy scouts, whatever.
Nothing to do with religion, everything to do with discrimination..
Isn't this against the Constitution?
Utterly shocking in the 21st Century - America is going backwards.
06 Apr 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo then you think Mississippi should also go back to allowing people to refuse services based on someone's skin colour? Do you also think business owners should be able to deny services to Jehovah's Witnesses?
You are discriminating against people exercising their moral and religious beliefs if you do not allow them to exercise their consciences in harmony with those religious beliefs. No one should be compelled to act against the dictates of conscience.
Originally posted by josephwNot too long ago it was considered immoral to marry someone of a different race.
Ethnicity cannot be equated with homosexuality. It is bigotry to refuse service because of race, but the term bigotry cannot be made to apply to those who discriminate against someone with a degenerative moral condition.
The next thing you know we'll be forced to allow pedophiles to molest children because if we don't we'll be labeled bigots. Homosexuality is a repugnant abomination and morally filthy act.
Who decides what is 'bigotry' and what is 'morality'?
And whether or not anyone likes the sound of that it's my right to say so and to discriminate against the practice of homosexuality in the public domain.
Actually, no, it is not your right. There are limitations on how much you can discriminate against gay people.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWill you please stop attempting to equate the colour of ones skin with sexual practices. Its a nonsense. Racial characteristics are immutable, sexual practices are not and people can and do change their sexual practices based on nothing more than a preference unlike their racial characteristics, so I suggest that you attempt to find some other rationale because its an old hackneyed one which simply does not stand scientific scrutiny no matter how many civil rights bandwagons you attempt to hijack.
So then you think Mississippi should also go back to allowing people to refuse services based on someone's skin colour? Do you also think business owners should be able to deny services to Jehovah's Witnesses?
Your question is also loaded with an assumed value, rather transparent and not very clever. Please find the tone control and turn it all the way up. Your second question is also a vain appeal to personal considerations.
Would you compel a Muslim butcher to sell pork? would you compel a Jew to break the Sabbath by compelling him or her to work? Would you compel a Sikh to cut his hair and never wear a turban? Would you compel a Hindu to eat beef? No? Why not? because these are infringements on the tenets and practice of their religious beliefs. Correct me if I am wrong but provision has been made to accommodate these beliefs in the work place? Then why are you discriminating against Christians when they exercise their religious beliefs and act within the dictates of their conscience.
If i go to a business or service and ask for something and the proprietor says 'sorry we don't do' that then I look for someone that does. But that is not even close to whats being asked here, Christians are being asked to contribute to a stance which is condemned in their Holy book and which transgresses their conscience. Once again issuing a marriage certificate is not the same as buying a sticky bun.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Shocking? what is shocking is that it has taken so long for provision to be made to those who object to it, that is what is shocking. 😲
I was expecting this to be an April Fool's Gag.
Isn't this against the Constitution?
Utterly shocking in the 21st Century - America is going backwards.
06 Apr 16
Originally posted by josephwdegenerative moral condition 😲
Ethnicity cannot be equated with homosexuality. It is bigotry to refuse service because of race, but the term bigotry cannot be made to apply to those who discriminate against someone with a degenerative moral condition.
The next thing you know we'll be forced to allow pedophiles to molest children because if we don't we'll be labeled bigots. Homosexuali ...[text shortened]... y in the public domain.
It has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with morality.
06 Apr 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePutting aside your own affiliation to your church, do you think business owners should, if they want to, be able to deny services to Jehovah's Witnesses?
Will you please stop attempting to equate the colour of ones skin with sexual practices. Its a nonsense. Racial characteristics are immutable, sexual practices are not and people can and do change their sexual practices based on nothing more than a preference unlike their racial characteristics, so I suggest that you attempt to find some other ratio ...[text shortened]... r conscience. Once again issuing a marriage certificate is not the same as buying a sticky bun.
06 Apr 16
Originally posted by wolfgang59America is going backwards, and not because people are discriminating, but because their not discriminating. The constitution isn't designed to be used as a grounds for the right to be immoral.
I was expecting this to be an April Fool's Gag.
Isn't this against the Constitution?
Utterly shocking in the 21st Century - America is going backwards.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Apr 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Will you please stop attempting to equate the colour of ones skin with sexual practices. Its a nonsense. Racial characteristics are immutable, sexual practices are not and people can and do change their sexual practices based on nothing more than a preference unlike their racial characteristics, so I suggest that you attempt to find some other ratio ...[text shortened]... r conscience. Once again issuing a marriage certificate is not the same as buying a sticky bun.
Will you please stop attempting to equate the colour of ones skin with sexual practices. Its a nonsense. Racial characteristics are immutable, sexual practices are not and people can and do change their sexual practices based on nothing more than a preference unlike their racial characteristics, so I suggest that you attempt to find some other rationale because its an old hackneyed one which simply does not stand scientific scrutiny no matter how many civil rights bandwagons you attempt to hijack.
Contrary to your ignorant opinion, Science does in fact support the idea that sexuality and gender are NOT choices.
And while what kind of sexual practices you engage in are a choice, we do allow [and should allow] consenting adults
to make those choices.
Also, the same laws and principles that apply to 'racial' protections also apply to religious and cultural protections which
are also not immutable facets of biology [not that race is either].
If protections are ONLY for immutable facts of biology then there can be no religious protections as religion is not immutable.
However the biggest point against this stupidity of yours, is that the equation is not between race and sexuality but
between the bigotry of those who discriminate based on race and those who discriminate based on sexuality.
Would you compel a Muslim butcher to sell pork?
Wow, you really don't understand this issue do you.
No, because butchers are not required to sell any particular kind of meat.
However they ARE required to sell their meat to anyone who walks into the shop [and is not violent or abusive etc].
You can choose what products you sell but not who you sell them to.
would you compel a Jew to break the Sabbath by compelling him or her to work?
If there is a particular job that will require work to be done on 'The Sabbath' and a Jew applies for that job they should
do so knowing that they will be required to do that work. [for example, if you join the military you must expect to
work on any day of the week]
However if a person is not prepared to work 'The Sabbath' then they are free to refuse jobs that would require that.
And workplaces that do work on 'The Sabbath' but that don't require all employees to be available on that day should
make reasonable accommodations to allow this flexibility.
Would you compel a Sikh to cut his hair and never wear a turban?
NO. You still don't get this, the Sikh can do what they want with their hair just like anyone else.
The equivalent analogy would be allowing the Sikh's to impose their turban wearing on everyone else.
THAT is the equivalent of the bigotry you espouse.
Would you compel a Hindu to eat beef? No? Why not?
Because Hindus have a taboo against eating beef, so they are free not to eat it.
They are not free to require any restaurant they go to not to serve it, or otherwise impose their taboo on others NOT
of their religion. [A scenario that looks like what Dasa is peddling]
because these are infringements on the tenets and practice of their religious beliefs. Correct me if I am wrong but provision has been made to accommodate these beliefs in the work place? Then why are you discriminating against Christians when they exercise their religious beliefs and act within the dictates of their conscience.
I am an atheist, and an anti-theist, and I consequently really don't like religions and religious belief, and indeed consider many
religions including all variants of Christianity to be immoral.
While I worked in a computer service shop I had a number of religious people come in including some local JW's.
According to you I should have been free to decide that these people were immoral and thus refuse to serve them.
If i go to a business or service and ask for something and the proprietor says 'sorry we don't do' that then I look for someone that does. But that is not even close to what's being asked here, Christians are being asked to contribute to a stance which is condemned in their Holy book and which transgresses their conscience. Once again issuing a marriage certificate is not the same as buying a sticky bun.
Legally speaking it's exactly the same.
IF you sign up to do the job of Marriage registrar then you are required to do that job.
That job includes issuing marriage licences to anyone legally eligible.
IF you have a problem with that you can quit the job and let someone who is able to do it take the position.
THAT is your religious freedom.
However IF you take the job you are not allowed to IMPOSE your beliefs on others by refusing to serve those you
dislike.
We live in a plural and SECULAR society with people of may different faiths and belief systems and no one is allowed
to impose the taboos of their beliefs on anyone else.
We all are bound equally by the rule of secular law.