Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-25-2019 12:11 PM
35 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,395 Year: 15,431/19,786 Month: 2,154/3,058 Week: 12/516 Day: 12/31 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Modulous
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 39 of 1484 (802128)
03-12-2017 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dr Adequate
03-12-2017 10:23 AM


Why not?

Because voting someone into high office doesn't validate or legitimize their sin like baking a cake, taking photographs or arranging flowers does. Obv.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-12-2017 10:23 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 3:30 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 40 of 1484 (802130)
03-12-2017 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
03-12-2017 7:23 AM


nothing in principle different between a Christian's being required to worship Caesar or Nebuchadnezzar and being required to do something that to the Christian conscience implies acceptance of anything else that God has absolutely forbidden, such as gay marriage.

Nobody is being forced to do this.

What they can't have from a Christian baker is a special order for a gay wedding because that puts the baker in the position of treating the wedding as legitimate, and nothing rrhain has to say about it makes one iota of difference to that fact.

Why does the Christian baker have to treat the wedding as legitimate by making a custom cake for people celebrating signing a contractual agreement with the government? Wedding cakes aren't even a sacrament that symbolises a holy matrimony in the eyes of God. Neither are weddings. It's not as if God is joining them together, it's not as if they are being forced to accept that God is joining them together.

...gay marriage a slap in God's face, which we will not participate in. Where there is a law requiring us to accept gay marriage we simply cannot obey it and must take the punishment.

If baking a cake is the same as accepting a gay marriage as a holy matrimony, you don't have to bake cakes. I have never baked a wedding cake, for instance. Baking wedding cakes is not mandatory.

The florist could of course design arrangements for them for any other kind of event. Same for a Christian photographer. Again, the photographer could take pictures for any other kind of party, just not a gay wedding.

How about a party celebrating the signing of a contract between two people of the same sex with the government formalising their relationship for tax/insurance/healthcare/childcare/housing/employment purposes?

Are you unaware that we were a Christian society up until very recently, which would never have dreamed of legalizing something as antichristian as "gay marriage?"

And now you are increasingly a post-Christian society. Even your fellow Christians are rejecting the notion that prohibiting two people from signing a contract is anything but motivated by animus cloaked by faux-righteousness.

Now that the west is regressing to paganism we have increasingly pagan laws which eagerly shove Christianity off the map

Rather, as your version of Christianity becomes less accepted, this has allowed laws you disagree with to get passed.

we have no choice but to obey God rather than man and take the consequences.

Why don't you make a martyr video about it?

Last news is that the owner of the business decided not to make any more wedding cakes. Is that punishment enough for you?

Not making cakes is not a punishment. It is a sensible thing to do if you cannot, in good conscience, do it. I don't work in the arms industry because I cannot, in good conscience do it. I do not work in the fossil fuel industry because I cannot, in good conscience do it. So if baking wedding cakes is no longer viable, changing your business model sounds like the sane response.

It's a shame they didn't do it of their own recognizance and instead had to be ordered to do it by the court system.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 7:23 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 3:26 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 42 of 1484 (802136)
03-12-2017 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Tangle
03-12-2017 12:46 PM


Similarly, why ask a right-wing fundamentalist jerk-off to bake you a cake if you're queer?

How would you know they are fundamentalist jerk-offs?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Tangle, posted 03-12-2017 12:46 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 47 of 1484 (802143)
03-12-2017 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Faith
03-12-2017 3:26 PM



I have such a headache after being taken on the ride through your bumpy logic I think I'm going to have to lie down.

Getting married is a contract between two people and the government.
Legitimizing this is not a legitimizing a claim to holy matrimony, the sacrament of God bringing a man and a woman together and joining them as one in a bond that cannot be separated by man.
If you still think the government can sanctify or claims to sanctify partnerships in holy matrimony, you are free not enter a business where you will be legally obliged to take part in it. If you are already in such a business you can change your business model or get out of the business.

With me so far?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 3:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 3:47 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 53 of 1484 (802149)
03-12-2017 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
03-12-2017 3:47 PM


Re:
Well, getting out of such businesses is probably what the law is going to force a lot of Christians to do. Hope it makes you all happy to be the instrument of such injustice.

Christians have been the instruments of injustice against gay folk for so long, I have difficulty working up sympathy. Perhaps you should have considered who you pissed on on the way up, realizing you might meet them on the way down?

God didn't say anything about the validity of any particular method of uniting people, but we were open to the idea of a civil contract and instead what we got was specifically marriage.

If 'marriage' is a sacred term, you should be complaining that government is involved in it in any way whatsoever. As it turns out, whether it is a 'sacred' term or not, it is also a profane one.

Marriage is an ordinance of God, however it is performed.

Really? Even when it's two people of the same sex? Or bigamy?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 3:47 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 4:29 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 59 of 1484 (802155)
03-12-2017 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
03-12-2017 4:29 PM


Re:

No, only when it is between one man and one woman because that IS the ordinance of God.

So what's the problem then? Gay marriage is not an ordinance of God. Nobody is forcing you to say, believe or act like it is. Baking a cake does not make the statement 'I legitimize this as an ordinance of God' - so what's the issue?

But it doesn't matter if it's sealed by a government license or any other means, it is an ordinance given by God.

Does this all come down to the fact that they use word 'marriage' to describe it? Sounds like the ridiculous legalism of the Pharisees to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 4:29 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 4:56 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 66 of 1484 (802163)
03-12-2017 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
03-12-2017 4:56 PM


Re:
Does this all come down to the fact that they use word 'marriage' to describe it? Sounds like the ridiculous legalism of the Pharisees to me.
Are you kidding!?. We have a LAW that says there is such a thing as a marriage between homosexuals.

A simple 'yes' would have sufficed.

Just because the government calls something marriage, doesn't mean whatever the government calls marriage is an ordinance of God. So what's the problem?

MARRIAGE LICENSES are issued to confirm it, regular standard marriage licenses, not some special form of contract

Marriage licences are a special form of contract.

It is a LAW so we HAVE to obey it or suffer the consequences.

The law that the Christians have broken is the law that says you have to open your public accommodation, your business, to everyone regardless of their race, sex, religion or sexual orientation. The Christians are trying to find reasons to not always follow this law by whining about religious rights.

But again, nobody is forcing them to believe the government institution IS the ordinance from God. They are different rites. Sometimes they are the same, perhaps - but as you have already said, this is not always the case. I am perfectly happy if you want to believe gay marriage is not ordained by God, but I don't see why anybody has to refuse to provide services for gay marriages ordained by the government.

Acknowledging something ordained by the government is not the same as acknowledging something is ordained by God. Isn't that kind of your entire point anyway?

Actually, strictly speaking it isn't a law and shouldn't be regarded as a law because it was initiated by the Supreme Court, not the legislature

Only if you want to say the Constitution isn't law. Again, Christians were perfectly happy with the government legitimizing marriage and conferring benefits to it. This was, apparently, their mistake. In trying to mix their religious rites with government benefits they opened the door to the equal protection clause.

It's treated as law, however, it is enforced as law, even though it is in actual reality an illegal law.

In law, whether something is an illegal law is decided by SCOTUS. If you Christians disagree with this, you should have done something about this before you started losing ground - instead of using the Supreme Court when it suited you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 4:56 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 5:18 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 70 of 1484 (802167)
03-12-2017 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
03-12-2017 5:18 PM


Re:
It's hard to believe you take yourself seriously with such a post, most of which I've already answered. Contortions and rationalizations so weird again I have to take a nap to recover.

Let me know when you want to have a civilized discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 5:18 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 74 of 1484 (802171)
03-12-2017 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by JonF
03-12-2017 5:29 PM


Re: related issues
What happened when they were reported to the authorities?

They weren't reported to the authorities because the person making the video knew perfectly well that the shop didn't make wedding cakes. Also, he didn't suffer any actual loss. In fact, he profited from the video.

One of the shops seems to make bread, not cakes - for instance. This is another one, again they don't do wedding cakes..

Of course the heavily edited video doesn't show the full conversations and the host of the youtube channel lies about it saying they do.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by JonF, posted 03-12-2017 5:29 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by PaulK, posted 03-12-2017 6:04 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 82 by JonF, posted 03-12-2017 9:32 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 81 of 1484 (802181)
03-12-2017 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by PaulK
03-12-2017 6:04 PM


Re: related issues
A dishonest right-wing propaganda video on YouTube

Apparently Steven Crowder is {probably} a leftie false flag operation now. OF course Fox News dropped him after he criticized Sean Hannity so maybe it's true:

quote:
Fox hired Crowder four years ago and gave him a lot of visibility. But the problem was that he was never that funny, and, in addition, he crossed the line more than a few times. So we let him go. It happens. This is a business. But now, sadly, on his way out the door, Crowder is proving his true colors, by being disloyal to the folks who took a chance on him and had him on the payroll for so long. The attack on Hannity only further underscores the wisdom of our decision to part company with him

Breitbart source

Well anyway, Faith should tell Conservative Review - Mark Levin's baby - who feature him on CRTV.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by PaulK, posted 03-12-2017 6:04 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 168 of 1484 (802317)
03-14-2017 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by jar
03-14-2017 6:47 PM


Re: when to keep quiet
This thread is a great example to support Tangle's position.

No it isn't.

There are times when the more effective tactic is to simply stop responding then to continue making a point but in a manner that causes even those who agree with you to simply turn off anything you say.

So we should stop being so uppity because people that claimed to agree with us might think we are being untimely? Sorry, those people clearly don't agree with us, and never have. If suing someone for being prejudicial turns them off, they were never truly onside. So we must continue to educate people, even those that claim they are allies - because sometimes allies can do the most harm through passive aggression. And this is why this thread is a great example of why there is clearly much work yet to be done.

Bigots will always be with us.

The laws are in place.

And so they should be enforced. There have been laws in place for all sorts of things. Heck - the law that allowed gay marriage has been with us since 1868. Bigots just refused to acknowledge this, causing pain and suffering.

Sometimes you have to fight to make sure people understand the consequences for breaking the rules. That way other businesses will consider not only the bad publicity, if it exists (and lets not forget that some prejudicial acts will actually draw customers in - the aforementioned bigots), but the financial costs and the possibility of losing their permission to trade.

The issue is when to make use of such laws and when to simply ignore the bigotry.

When to make use of the laws? Whenever you are harmed and have the strength and resources to make use of them.

When to ignore bigotry? Never.

Where is effort best spent?

There isn't a singular 'effort pool' here, jar. Only the person harmed can sue. It's not like when I sue someone, that inhibits someone else from writing to their representative to write better laws, from campaigning for new elected officials, from investigating hate crimes, from holding up a sign, from writing to a newspaper, from writing a book from composing a song - or anything else. The effort is spent in parallel, by those that have the power and strength. Only those that have been harmed have the power to sue, and only some have the strength.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by jar, posted 03-14-2017 6:47 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 171 of 1484 (802320)
03-14-2017 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Tangle
03-14-2017 4:23 AM


Re: related issues
Campaign hard until you win the main battle, then calm down dear.

Suing someone is a pretty calm thing to do. It's literally the civilized way to deal with disputes. Reporting someone to a regulatory agency for breaching regulations likewise.

The real bigots won't change, you need the hearts and minds of the average guy to change to actually make the difference.

The 'average guy' will only change their minds if they know there is an alternative mind to have, if they hear the story. Making it part of the public record is the calm and reasonable way of doing this.

You only way to do that is to become the norm - nice, ordinary and everyday.

Gay people are normal, nice ordinary and everyday. Most people already think this. Women are also normal, nice, ordinary and everyday. Sometimes they are discriminated against, and normal, nice ordinary and everyday average guys agree that people who discriminate should be penalized.

While there are still battles to be won, it seems a better tactic to me to fight those specific battles not bugger about with cakes and bakers.

If you hadn't noticed, equal access to public accommodations is and has been a specific battle we've been fighting for decades. Hopefully we're in the final stages of that battle, but in the USA particularly - but also the UK - the counterstrike of 'religious freedom' has been used to avoid legal ramifications: deny people healthcare, deny them housing, and public accommodation (ie., equal access to goods and services). Not fighting that fight has proven to strengthen the other weapon bigots use all the time 'history' and 'tradition'. The whole 'this is what we've always done and nobody has complained before' routine.

If businesses don't realize that there is a risk of a serious financial liability for their actions, there is no motivation for any bigots that run them to change their business model to be lawful.

The battle against racism is being won but it takes time and perseverance to change the majority mind.

That's what's happening: perseverance. You seem to advocating we don't bother because some big battle is won.

It's a matter of tactics what approach you take to do that but misplaced activism may do more harm than good.

Suing someone is not activism. I see no evidence of any misplaced activism in any case here. I've been reading your responses to this thread and you haven't given any examples. You are right, misplaced activism can do more harm than good. But it's irrelevant on the grounds that reporting people for breaking regulations is not activism, it's good citizenship. Suing someone for causing you harm is not activism. For instance, you say:

I'm saying that I believe that it's likely to be counter-productive to complain about bigots not baking cakes - to go actively looking for them to make examples.

Who is actively looking for them? 400,000 people have gotten married to a same sex partner in the USA as an estimate. There are like a dozen cases I've heard about that went as far as legal action being taken.

Pick more strategic targets

This makes no sense. This isn't a strategy. The gay community isn't getting together at our weekly meetings and putting 'find bigoted providers' on the gay agenda.

make a point of standing above the bigots not simply against them and impress reasoned and reasonable people with your cause and demeaner

In what way is the demeanour of people suing problematic? How is 'standing above' them going to work? Did you hear about the time when I let bigotry slide past me? No? You didn't applaud me and give me a slap on my back for being a reasonable person then? Is that because you never heard about it?

Now I apparently have to say also that any LGBT with a genuine grieveance and evidence of hurt needs to shout about it.

That's literally exactly what is happening. You can't win a lawsuit if you don't have a genuine grievance and evidence of harm. That's how they work.

What do you think is happening that implies gay couples are 'deliberately targeting baking bigots'? Do you have any evidence of this or any other misplaced activism?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 4:23 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2017 1:38 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 179 of 1484 (802350)
03-15-2017 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Tangle
03-15-2017 1:38 PM


Re: related issues
Personally suing somebody is never, ever, a calm thing to do.

It's always calm. You generally sit quietly, most of the work is done in writing and the rest is using inside voices.

Compare with yelling and punching/knifing one another for an example of a extra-legal method of resolving irreconcilable differences.

It's extreemly stressful, expensive and it hangs over people for months and years.

It can be stressful. That said, every lawsuit I've initiated was entirely stress free. I spoke to a person wearing nice clothes about my problems, I sent them a list of evidences I had collected as to my harm, they gave me a price, I signed the relevant papers - then they went away and in one case, got results without a court case required, and in another, got a result in court in my favour.

I've also from a professional standpoint been involved in thousands of lawsuits, they are dry and boring affairs with not even the least bit emotion in 99% of them. The only stressful lawsuit I've ever been involved with was regarding the family of a man who had been decapitated after driving underneath a truck with inadequate guardings, and only because of the gory injuries I had to discuss with the family. The actual event was almost certainly a million times more stressful than the lawsuit that followed.

Cakes and bakers? Not really. Maybe once, to make the point.

To my knowledge each person involved has only sued a baker or other service provider once. Do you have any of that evidence I asked for to suggest otherwise?

Couldn't agree more. Just pick your fights shrewdly otherwise you risk being seen not being normal, nice etc.

Uh-huh. In the case of same sex marriage is this a risk that has ever manifested? Can you provide the case details?

Otherwise what you are saying seems to be 'Gay people should continue to sue bakers who discriminate against them unless at some point I think they shouldn't' Which seems kind of useless.


And, of course, I'm not disagreeing. There is a difference between saying 'never do this' and 'do this more strategically'.

But I only get married once. Or at least only once a decade or so. I can only reasonably expect to be discriminated against once. What's the correct strategy? Only sue when I'm discriminated against 1 in 10 times, to be decided upon rolling a D10? Or should I sue whenever I've been discriminated against AND I have sufficient evidence to prove this in the balance of probabilities in a court of law?

What is the strategy you are suggesting we should take if you think 'sue if you are harmed and can prove it' is not the correct strategy?

It sounds like empty nonsense: "Yes do good things, but try and do good things in an optimal way". I've heard better outcomes of management meetings.

Look, if the public hears constantly about seemingly trivial complaints from a particular section of society it will turn them against that sector.

Are you saying that being denied access to public accommodation at arbitrary points at your life for nonsensical reasons other than hatred of your kind is trivial?

I'm happy you have been so privileged to not have to live through that. Those that have, don't always find it so utterly trivial that they are comfortable turning a blind eye like you do. Most of the time they do let it pass, of course. Not worth the hassle, but apparently you want them to do this more often?
What's the optimal frequency Tangle?

Consciousness raising is good but you have to be careful if it's not to backfire.

More generic bullshit. What *specifically* has happened that you think has backfired? Has anything? Are you worried that the complains from uppity faggots might be 'untimely' or do you have something that isn't passively aggressively supporting the bigots that might actually contribute to the improvement of society on your mind?

What has been done that is outside of the optimal strategy?
What has been done that could have been done better?

I don't want to hear 'Do more good things in a better way'. Anyone can say that kind of crap. Likewise 'Don't do things that are bad, or at least mitigate the consequences when this does happen' is useless. Regurgitating nice sounding platitudes while telling someone who has been harmed to 'wait' can be just as harmful as misplaced activism. Be specific, provide actual evidence. Or shut the fuck up and let us live our own lives the way we see fit! It's our battle, our war, our fight. If you just want to yell from the sidelines 'Fight harder, fight smarter, be better' - you aren't helping.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2017 1:38 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2017 5:46 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 188 of 1484 (802364)
03-15-2017 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Tangle
03-15-2017 5:46 PM


Re: related issues
Ever given evidence in a witness box? It sounds like you may have - if you found that stress free you are unique to the world.

Almost all lawsuits don't require this. This also feels like an equivocation is at play.

You said we should 'calm down dear' meaning we are being hysterical or disproportionally emotional when we sue for being discriminated against. Then when I object by pointing out that taking legal action is the dispassionate way of handling being discriminated against, you counter that it can be stressful?

So what if it can be stressful? That isn't the point I was making. My point was that it was not the panicky hysteria of the woman from the e-sure adverts. Michael Winner was saying, instead you should engage in the dispassionate response: Sue the person responsible for the car accident and have them pay for the damages rather than screaming and crying excessively on the roadside. Well actually he was saying 'it's only a commercial', but you know.

I'm making a general point that a very major battle has been won, it's a brilliant achievement, it would be a shame if it lost some of its import with the rest of society because of what you will object to me calling an over-reaction to petty bigotry - each one of which results in a national outrage polarising opinion and hardening views.

Yes, it'd be a shame. Is there any reason to suppose this is something that might happen in the case of same sex marriage?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2017 5:46 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 7:19 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 195 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2017 7:36 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 194 of 1484 (802370)
03-15-2017 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by jar
03-15-2017 7:19 PM


Re: related issues
In the case of the US I would say that there is a very high probability of that happening.

What's the reason?

The political party that currently controls the House and the Senate as well as the Executive Branch are also in the position to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice...The issue of same-sex marriages is already not a popular position with the political base of the party in power.

You think Donald Trump won the election because of a dozen or so lawsuits/reports of regulatory breaches? Do you think this supports the notion that the 'rest of society' now considers same sex marriage as less important? Do you think these lawsuits are the causative factor in 'national outrage'?

The issue of same-sex marriages is already not a popular position with the political base of the party in power.

It was never popular with those people. Do you have reason to suppose that other people think that the victory regarding the general right of same sex marriage is in danger of losing 'its import' as a result of people fighting for their rights in specific/individual cases?

Why is this not also true of the other side? Why is the argument that the important victories of religious freedom are also in danger as a result of people using it to discriminate against queerfolk not being brought up here? The bigots claim to be fighting for their rights to harm others, but this is not a concern for religious freedom rights where same-sex couples are fighting for their rights to not be harmed is being subject to finger wagging. This seems a little unfairly asymmetric to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 7:19 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 7:56 PM Modulous has responded

  
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019