Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 1/1


EvC Forum ⇒ Side Orders ⇒ Coffee House ⇒

Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2587
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.0

Normal Thread Display
Message 313 of 928 (729251)
06-07-2014 11:11 AM 		Reply to: Message 286 by Faith
06-06-2014 4:18 PM

Re: Pedophilia?
Faith writes:
​
You don't like the comparison with pedophilia because you think that's a really terrible sin while you think homosexuality is acceptable, but in God's eyes they are both sins, and both are psychological aberrations in a way that other sins are not, so that it's hard to find other comparisons. There are plenty of heterosexual sins but none of them are characteristic of a person the way homosexuality is or I would use them as my comparison.
​
Actually I was glad you brought pedophilia up. Getting back to the topic, would it be okay for a baker to refuse to bake, say, a birthday cake for a known pederast? You know, like one of those Catholic Priests? How about a rapist or a murderer? How about anyone convicted of a felony? How about petty theft? Jaywalking? See, there is a line of egregiousness above which you may be justified in refusing service. And below which you are not. To paraphrase George W., it's fuzzy math.
​
The SCREAMING difference for me is that, in the case of pedophilia acted upon, there are VICTIMS. For your garden variety same-sex marriage, it is between 2 consenting adults - there are no victims.
​
You might have noticed that I used the phrase "case of pedophilia acted upon" above, to echo your other strange sentence, from Message 284:
Belief isn't belief until it's acted upon.
Does someone who knows he is a pedophile, but only admits to it and never acts upon it still deserve to be refused service of a birthday cake? I'm thinking of Allen Ginsberg and his membership in NAMBLA. This a more general question to this audience and not specifically addressed to Faith.
​
More fuzzy math.
​
Jimmy Carter famously admitted to having lusted in his heart, but he never acted upon it. He deserves to be served the cake.
- xongsmith, 5.7d
This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Faith, posted 06-06-2014 4:18 PM Faith has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Modulous, posted 06-11-2014 6:15 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied
  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2587
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.0

Normal Thread Display
Message 369 of 928 (755007)
04-03-2015 10:43 AM 		Reply to: Message 359 by herebedragons
04-02-2015 10:23 PM

Re: NPR - Southern Baptist Minister: Religious Liberty Law Permits Denial Of Some Service
HBD werites:
​
the problem is deciding what is considered speech in this context. Wedding cakes, flowers and the like, I don't think qualify.
​
Depends on what decorations they ask you to put on the cake. Obviously a huge swastika with the words "Down with fags!" written on DOES cross the line....
- xongsmith, 5.7d
This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by herebedragons, posted 04-02-2015 10:23 PM herebedragons has not replied
  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2587
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.0

Normal Thread Display
Message 396 of 928 (755047)
04-03-2015 5:28 PM 		Reply to: Message 388 by jar
04-03-2015 2:24 PM

Re: in the US
jar writes:
​
It is the speech I most disagree with that I must protect.
​
The limit, as I said back in Message 374 is with speech that incites illegal activity or violence.
​
quote:
I would support someones right to incite racial hatred but admit that there are very fuzzy limits. For example I would support someone saying "All gays should die" but if it said "Go out and kill gays" then I would be less sure of my position. In the latter case I imagine that consideration would have to be given to just how effective the likelihood of actual action based on the speech would be. The default position for me would be to protect the speech unless there was clear and present danger of action based on the speech.
​
A noble distinction, but clear & present danger is kind of fuzzy.
​
One the major problems with homo sapiens is that they are so susceptable to stupid advertising.
​
Damn it all to hell. Commercials actually WORK!
- xongsmith, 5.7d
This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by jar, posted 04-03-2015 2:24 PM jar has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by jar, posted 04-03-2015 5:33 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied
  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2587
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.0

Normal Thread Display
Message 799 of 928 (758491)
05-27-2015 1:46 AM 		Reply to: Message 798 by Faith
05-26-2015 10:53 PM

Re: Inquisition still continuing
Faith observes:
​
Fifty million Bible believers murdered in the Inquisition, and then I found out it's still going on in some Catholic countries.
​
The best thing on all levels is simply for you to give all religions up. There are wasting your life like drug dealers do. Think about how much money & energy you would save.
​
But, no - you are trapped.
- xongsmith, 5.7d
This message is a reply to:
 Message 798 by Faith, posted 05-26-2015 10:53 PM Faith has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024