|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Also, I think he'd have a big problem arguing that anti-gay bigots are a protected class. But he's doing it, and rather well. He wants a cake that expresses his deeply-held religious beliefs. If he is refused, he is being discriminated against because the owners of the cake shop don't like his religious beliefs. There is apparently a law in Colorado protecting him from that. I say that this law goes too far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But is he being discriminated against because of his religious beliefs ? Well, yes he is. He wanted the words "God hates gays" on his cake, which is his sincere religious belief, and they denied it because it contravenes their own beliefs. If he'd asked for a cake saying "Flibberty wibberty bibberty bobberty boo", then that would have been equally stupid, but no-one would have denied it to him. They refused him the cake because they didn't want to get involved with what he actually did want to say. Surely that is their right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
How does a wedding cake support a marriage? Are marriages without a cake still valid? OK, but suppose someone refused to supply timber to a KKK cross-burning ceremony. I think there is still a problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
But it's a pretty fine balance, you complained when I pointed out the UK law that might provide a defence. That's not a complaint, that's just a statement. It is difficult. Nonetheless, it is possible to sort it out in ways other that saying that everyone must serve everyone under any possible circumstances.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
No, I'd expect people to be educated enough in what is Biblical and what isn't to avoid that sort of sttuppidditty. But in fact they aren't.
Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples This church isn't "educated enough in what is Biblical" to "avoid that sort of sttuppidditty". So why would we assume that an ordinary secular business would be "educated enough in what is Biblical" to "avoid that sort of sttuppidditty". Also, thinking about it --- don't you usually suppose that society was more Christian back in the day, in, let's say, the 1950s? When segregation was the law of the land? Since society has become less Christian since then, and yet more opposed to racial discrimination, I don't see how one can claim that this idea of "what is Biblical" would make people less discriminatory. Indeed, pretty much everyone arguing for discrimination thumped the Bible and said it was God's law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The First Amendment protects the Christian religion, in whatever form of life chosen. No. No it doesn't. It wouldn't protect Catholics who burned a Protestant at the stake for heresy. The First Amendment doesn't protect people who step over the line drawn by the law of the land. Burning a Protestant would still be murder. So we have to sort this out. Where does freedom of religion stop, and where can the law take over? It's a real question, we can't just give carte blanche to someone who wants to burn Protestants.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Well, interesting digression. But it doesn't really answer my point. What do we do if people want to do things, on religious grounds, contrary to the law? What if we have a bunch of Protestants saying "But God wants us to execute Quakers"? Well, that sucks for them. The First Amendment doesn't protect them. What if, to take a more realistic example, you have a guy like Warren Jeffs? The law says that his followers really can't marry that many underage girls. But their prophet says that they should. Hmm, what to do?
Now the First Amendment does render unconstitutional those laws that specifically target a religion --- say, a law preventing Catholics from holding Mass. But it doesn't affect laws intended to remedy a (real or perceived) social evil, such as, say racial discrimination, they don't violate the First Amendment on the grounds that some people who want to discriminate want to do so for religious reasons. It does, I believe, do so when it comes to particular religious practices. A church which is opposed to interracial marriage can't be forced to conduct one. But that still leaves the State with a lot of latitude. The thing to do, I suggest, is to try to be fair and reasonable when drafting laws. Just because something doesn't actually violate the First Amendment is not a reason why that thing should be legal; conversely, just because a law stopping people from doing that thing doesn't violate the First Amendment isn't a reason why that thing should be illegal. If the best justification someone can think of for doing something is that it's not actually unconstitutional, then it's probably not a good thing to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Good news! The House of Representatives of the great state of Mississippi have passed the "PROTECTING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FROM GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION ACT". It's about time too, the state of Mississippi has existed for 199 years, and in all that time its citizens haven't had freedom of conscience, hence the necessity for this bill.
At last, the sincerely-held religious beliefs of Mississippians will be protected! Or ... wait, will they? Nuh-uh. Not in general. According to the bill, exactly three sincerely-held religious beliefs will be protected from "government discrimination":
SECTION 2. The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that: (a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and (c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth. Anyone with other (or, God forbid, opposite) sincerely held religious beliefs can go screw themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That completely misses the point if it's in reference to the Pizza store that almost had to shut down for refusing to cater a GAY WEDDING. They weren't asked to.
Nobody is refusing to serve gays pizza, that has never ever been a problem, the problem is being put in a position where you have to provide a service for a gay wedding ... ... at which point they have said that they would refuse to serve gays pizza, something that you just assured me that nobody does, never ever.
I do wish you'd get honest about this. Ah, hypocrisy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Produce the evidence. For what?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024