Page 69 of 69 FirstFirst ... 1959676869
Results 681 to 689 of 689

Thread: SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

  1. #681
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    38,364
    Amen (Given)
    3520
    Amen (Received)
    18168
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    You believe morals are objective/absolute, but cannot show that they are. At the end of the day, you and I are doing the same thing, Sparko. You are just asserting that yours ARE objective/absolute and requiring everyone to align with them, and I know mine are not objective/absolute and looking to convince those who's morals are different to consider re-examining them, making arguments for why they should as I go. Your argument is the same for everything: it says so in the bible. Except you actually don't have any original copies of that book, it was not written in a language you understand, you have to interpret "what it means" and that has changed numerous times over the centuries, and you cannot demonstrate that anything it says is actually objective/absolute.

    Sorry, Sparko - we are actually the same. You just think you have access to absolutes that you cannot show exist.
    At least I am consistent with my claims. I expect everyone to accept the same morals because there is an objective standard of good. You expect everyone to follow the same morals despite claiming there are no objective morals. THAT is what I was pointing out.

    Wait. NOW you want to appeal to popularity of values? I thought morals were personal preferences. OK so if it is based on common values most of us share, then how can you say that being against gay marriage was bigotry before it was legalized? Back when the common values most of us shared said it was immoral?
    Since I did not appeal to popularity of values, and never have, I have no response.
    Complete and utter BS!

    Quote Originally Posted by Carp
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko
    Why should anyone agree with your morality instead of mine?
    Because it is based in common values most of us share, and in reasoning from those values. It is not based on words written in a book originally in another language and culture 2-3.5K years ago by men long dead, the originals of which we have exactly none.
    So if it is based on common values most of us share, then how can you say that being against gay marriage was bigotry before it was legalized? Back when the common values most of us shared said it was immoral?










    Of course I agree. I've always agreed. Subjective frameworks cannot make objective statements. We know that - it's the definition of the words. You're not saying anything, except reasserting what the words mean. Hence "Technique #1.
    I was merely pointing out WHY your morals or the reasons for your morals do not matter. Are you having a hard time keeping track?

    [the rest of you ironically repeating yourself complaining that seer and I are repeating ourselves is deleted]

    Quote Originally Posted by sparko
    Can you give me an argument why your personal preferences matter should to me? Or why my personal preferences should matter to you? Or the reasons why I hold them?
    Sure. I am a fallible human being. Sometimes, I think I know things and I know them incorrectly. Sometimes I reason to conclusions in a faulty way, and the result is useless, or possibly harmful. Listening to others and considering their arguments is like using a mirror when you dress: it gives you an opportunity to hear how your arguments might be strong or weak, helpful or harmful, etc. Closing one's mind to outside input locks one in a bubble from which they will never extract themselves.

    So I listen to moral arguments. I weigh them against what I value and examine my reasoning process. When it is flawed, I adjust accordingly, and thank the person on the other side for their contribution.
    And yet you don't. You dismiss my values. You call me a bigot. You repeat yourself. You don't consider anything I or seer actually say. To you our morals are "wrong" and you could not care less for WHY we hold them. Other than if they will affect how YOU live. If our morals were to become too prevalent then it might impact your lifestyle or what you think the prevalent lifestyle should be.



    Does it matter to you that the reason I believe homosexual behavior is wrong is because God said so?
    First, I believe there is no god, so that argument will not be compelling. Second, since the moral position is inconsistent, if there were a god, I cannot imagine such a being (assuming it is rational) holding such an inconsistent position. I also cannot imagine a "god of love" rejecting love on the basis of the genitals of the two people.
    I didn't ask you if you agreed. I asked you if it mattered to you WHY I thought homosexual behavior is wrong. Would it matter if I said because an alien told me instead of God?




    If you can make an argument for your position, I will listen. If not...
    No you won't. That has been proven in every post of yours on this board, just about. You seem incapable of admitting you were wrong about anything significant.

    Other than that, what someone else thinks of me doesn't really impact me all that much. It's why the endless stream of mocking emojis, snide comments, and insults are really a waste of all of you folk's time. If you enjoy doing it, go for it. If you're looking to get under my skin...well...let's just say my skin is a little thicker than that...
    Exactly. What we believe doesn't matter, nor the reasons why we believe them. Exactly what I have been saying. Because IF you are right, then your morality is your personal morality and has nothing to do with me unless it somehow influences my life directly. If you believe murder is fine and you try to murder me, then I will care what you think about murder.

  2. #682
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,326
    Amen (Given)
    22
    Amen (Received)
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    At least I am consistent with my claims. I expect everyone to accept the same morals because there is an objective standard of good. You expect everyone to follow the same morals despite claiming there are no objective morals. THAT is what I was pointing out.
    There is no inconsistency here. Each of us believes we follow the "best" moral framework, and wishes the rest of the world would do the same, by definition. As I noted before, if someone comes to me and makes a strong case for why a moral position I hold is not optimal, the moment I see that argument as valid and that moral position as superior, it will displace my previously held position. If I always optimize my moral framework, then it is rather odd to think that I would not want everyone to have the same moral framework, by definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Complete and utter BS!
    If you think otherwise, feel free to point to a place where I have ever said that morality is dictated by "popular vote." You did this before - and confused me with someone else. That has never been my position, and never will be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    So if it is based on common values most of us share, then how can you say that being against gay marriage was bigotry before it was legalized? Back when the common values most of us shared said it was immoral?
    For the same reason that I can say enslaving black people, the era of Jim Crow, and all the rest were bigotry. Everyone assesses actions (past, present, and future) against their own moral framework.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    I was merely pointing out WHY your morals or the reasons for your morals do not matter. Are you having a hard time keeping track?

    [the rest of you ironically repeating yourself complaining that seer and I are repeating ourselves is deleted]
    Then I'll let my previous responses stand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    And yet you don't. You dismiss my values. You call me a bigot. You repeat yourself. You don't consider anything I or seer actually say. To you our morals are "wrong" and you could not care less for WHY we hold them. Other than if they will affect how YOU live. If our morals were to become too prevalent then it might impact your lifestyle or what you think the prevalent lifestyle should be.
    Actually, the two sentences that are even slightly accurate in that entire paragraph are "you call me a bigot" and the last one. I believe I actually said the position you hold is a bigoted/prejudicial one. No one likes to hear that, so I can understand why you would be angry. The last sentence is, of course, true. If your morals return to prevalence, it will impact the lifestyles of many people (not mine, per se). None of the rest of the paragraph is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    I didn't ask you if you agreed. I asked you if it mattered to you WHY I thought homosexual behavior is wrong. Would it matter if I said because an alien told me instead of God?
    Sparko - I understand your devotion to your faith, so from that perspective "it matters" to me. But I have never accepted that religion is a valid reason for bigotry or prejudice. It is not an excuse for racism. It is not an excuse for sexism. It is not an excuse for treating others as "less" on the basis of who they are, especially not genetically. So from the perspective of making a moral argument, no - it does not matter to me that you believe "god says so." The Islamic Jihadist blowing themselves up in a grocery store also thinks "god said so." This is not an argument. Indeed, I consider it a bit dangerous to release personal responsibility and decision making to "god."

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    No you won't. That has been proven in every post of yours on this board, just about. You seem incapable of admitting you were wrong about anything significant.
    Your opinion is duly noted. I know that, when someone makes a good argument, I adjust in light of it. I've done it here (not often) and throughout my life. I won't claim that I slide smoothly into a new belief. Like everyone, letting go of old beliefs is sometimes hard. But I eventually get there - if the argument is sound. I'm not going to dive into a new belief solely to prove to you that I can. Make an argument that is sound and valid, and you'll convince. Fail to, and you won't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Exactly. What we believe doesn't matter, nor the reasons why we believe them. Exactly what I have been saying.
    If that's what you took from my statement, then you missed the point completely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Because IF you are right, then your morality is your personal morality and has nothing to do with me unless it somehow influences my life directly. If you believe murder is fine and you try to murder me, then I will care what you think about murder.
    That is indeed my impression of you, Sparko.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  3. #683
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    38,364
    Amen (Given)
    3520
    Amen (Received)
    18168
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    There is no inconsistency here. Each of us believes we follow the "best" moral framework, and wishes the rest of the world would do the same, by definition. As I noted before, if someone comes to me and makes a strong case for why a moral position I hold is not optimal, the moment I see that argument as valid and that moral position as superior, it will displace my previously held position. If I always optimize my moral framework, then it is rather odd to think that I would not want everyone to have the same moral framework, by definition.
    more than "want" - you fully EXPECT the rest of the world to accept your morality as "right" while at the same time claiming it is relative and subjective. You sir, are a hypocrite.



    If you think otherwise, feel free to point to a place where I have ever said that morality is dictated by "popular vote." You did this before - and confused me with someone else. That has never been my position, and never will be.
    I just did, you dishonest hack. You merely deleted it.

    Here it is again:

    Because it is based in common values most of us share, and in reasoning from those values. It is not based on words written in a book originally in another language and culture 2-3.5K years ago by men long dead, the originals of which we have exactly none.

    You believe something is moral because "most of us" share the value. If that is not populism, I don't know what is. At this point I am calling you a liar.







    For the same reason that I can say enslaving black people, the era of Jim Crow, and all the rest were bigotry. Everyone assesses actions (past, present, and future) against their own moral framework.
    except you already said that the morality of something is "based on the values most of us share" - if most people shared the value that slavery was moral, then by your definition, it was moral.

    You are again being a hypocrite and dodging around doing your kabuki dance trying to change definitions and play semantic games.

  4. #684
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,303
    Amen (Given)
    149
    Amen (Received)
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    So back to "whites only" signs in restaurants and on toilets?

    And then you wonder why Republicans are regularly accused of racism by the left...?
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    And I do not think you are a racist. Never have. I'm pointing out that people who seek to undermine protections put in place to address rampant discrimination should not be surprised if others then believe they are racist.
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Then I suggest you not complain over-much at the accusations of racism when you openly endorse a return to a world in which we publicly sanctioned racism.
    Such claims of racism are based on a conflation of moral and legal.
    Suppose the law also had banned racist speech. Then when someone argues the repeal of that law on free-speech grounds, then likely there would be people who would fallaciously conclude, "So back to rampant racist speech? You want return to a world in which we publicly sanctioned racism. You must be a racist."

    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I will always trade the freedom of the racist man to spew hatred for the freedom of minorities to live without such intimidation and hatred.
    Are you then opposed to free speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    No man is being forced by law to serve another. That's a canard. People are being told "if you serve - you cannot discriminate." No one is being told, "you have to serve." If you want to discriminate, then don't offer a service that makes that possible. Simple. Work for someone else. Manufacture stuff. But if you offer a public service, it is not legal or moral to deny to that service to someone on the basis of their race, sex, etc. (unless there is a direct relationship - like not providing gynecological services to men).
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    No. I am saying that I have the same right to your business/property and labor that you extend to anyone else. No one is requiring you to start a business or offer a service. You're not a slave. You ARE being told you cannot offer that service in a discriminatory fashion.
    I view your bolded statement as abhorrent as I would if you had said "I am saying that I have the same right to your body--including sexual intimacy--that you extend to anyone else."

    And, using the same example, you might have some technical point, when viewed in a certain way, that such a law regarding people's body would not force anyone to have sexual intercourse with another, because after all they could avoid it by choosing celibacy. Or a bigger kid says, "If you ever wear a red shirt again, I'm going to beat you up and take your lunch money." Then when he does beat you up you can't say you didn't consent to the beating and theft because after all you could have refrained from wearing red shirts. Or a woman wasn't technically raped because she essentially consented to it by dressing a certain way and walking in a certain part of town?

  5. #685
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,326
    Amen (Given)
    22
    Amen (Received)
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by Joel View Post
    Such claims of racism are based on a conflation of moral and legal.
    Suppose the law also had banned racist speech. Then when someone argues the repeal of that law on free-speech grounds, then likely there would be people who would fallaciously conclude, "So back to rampant racist speech? You want return to a world in which we publicly sanctioned racism. You must be a racist."
    Your point is a good one. Legally, Freedom of Speech is a core value of Americans. That does not make all speech moral. Racist speech is one of those things that is illegal but immoral (in my moral framework, anyway).

    So blocking black people from eating in white-only restaurants and requiring them to use black only toilets is also immoral. Today it is also illegal under the Civil Rights Act. So what "core American Value" is being compromised by making this illegal? One might say "freedom," but what of the freedom of the black man to live in a society that does not discriminate against him because of the color of his skin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Joel View Post
    Are you then opposed to free speech?
    Sort of. I believe in the constitutional protections against free speech. The government should not be allowed to impinge on free speech, for all of the reasons cited by the FFs. But I do not believe that we, as citizens, should tolerate the hateful speech of those who espouse racist, bigoted views. We need to call them out, we need to decry them, and we need to do everything legally and morally possible to eliminate them from the public sphere.

    All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joel View Post
    I view your bolded statement as abhorrent as I would if you had said "I am saying that I have the same right to your body--including sexual intimacy--that you extend to anyone else."
    If you were a sex worker - yes. If you are simply a married person, no. For what I would hope are obvious reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joel View Post
    And, using the same example, you might have some technical point, when viewed in a certain way, that such a law regarding people's body would not force anyone to have sexual intercourse with another, because after all they could avoid it by choosing celibacy. Or a bigger kid says, "If you ever wear a red shirt again, I'm going to beat you up and take your lunch money." Then when he does beat you up you can't say you didn't consent to the beating and theft because after all you could have refrained from wearing red shirts. Or a woman wasn't technically raped because she essentially consented to it by dressing a certain way and walking in a certain part of town?
    I have no idea what you are trying to say with this last paragraph.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  6. #686
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,303
    Amen (Given)
    149
    Amen (Received)
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joel
    (2) Money is itself a good. An exchange of fish for money can be seen as either selling fish for money, or buying money with fish.)
    Umm...that's a stretch. I'm not an economist or an expert in finance, but I'm pretty sure money is defined as a "medium of exchange." It is not a good in and of itself.
    I'm responding in a different order.
    A medium of exchange is a good that you acquire not because you want to use it, but only because you intend to exchange it for something else. (It could be anything, e.g. salt, gold, banknotes.) It becomes money when it is widely adopted as a medium of exchange.
    People hold money as part of their portfolio. And speculators buy and sell currencies in the market.

    Or if you are still hung up on the term "good", it is property that you acquire in an exchange. Both parties in an exchange, whether barter or not, are trading a service or property for a service or property.

    I just don't see anything about the particular kind of property involved that makes discrimination "inappropriate" in one case, but "no problem" the other case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joel
    (1) money is just a medium of exchange. People accept money in order to use it to purchase goods/services. So ultimately goods/services are exchanged for goods/services.
    Not exactly. In a barter, two people are directly exchanging goods/services. So your argument about it being equal had merit. However, that just means that someone who says "I refuse to barter with you because you're gay, black, female, etc. is still prejudice/bigotry. When you inject money, you separate the exchange, creating two distinct service acquisitions. I get the service from you and give you money. You use your money to get a service from someone else. Barter equates the two in any exchange; money creates a clear "buyer/seller" relationship.
    Take Alice who wants to trade fish to Bob for a silver denarius, so that she can trade the silver for Charlie's horse. If no one will trade with Alice for her services or property, she is just as prevented from buying the horse as if Charlie refused to trade with Alice at all. A total boycott of (discrimination against) Alice as "seller" would have the same result as a total boycott of Alice as "buyer".

    Again I just don't see why it makes a difference that it would be "inappropriate" to discriminate against someone's spending money (that they acquired by past trade), but "no problem" to discriminate against their acquiring money (for future trade).

    I do not disagree with that description, but the reality is that in the vast majority of exchanges, excepting custom purchases and extremely large purchases, the price is set by the seller and the buyer's choice is much more passive: they can purchase it for that price or go elsewhere. Even if that were not the case, I'm not sure how that relates to the discussion in this thread.
    I don't agree. A price is just as actively and firmly set in a buyer's mind who approaches the market with a price (e.g. maximum price) in mind. If the sellers are unwilling to sell that low, then no deal. In both cases if the other party has a too high/low price set then no deal. Again, I think maybe the distinction you are getting at is not whether a party has their price set in their mind, but whether they publish/advertise their set price.
    As for how it relates to the discussion in this thread? I don't know. You brought this up as a supposed distinction for why discrimination is "inappropriate" in the one case, but not in the other. You tell me why it makes that moral difference.

  7. #687
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,303
    Amen (Given)
    149
    Amen (Received)
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Your point is a good one. Legally, Freedom of Speech is a core value of Americans. That does not make all speech moral. Racist speech is one of those things that is illegal but immoral (in my moral framework, anyway).

    So blocking black people from eating in white-only restaurants and requiring them to use black only toilets is also immoral. Today it is also illegal under the Civil Rights Act. So what "core American Value" is being compromised by making this illegal? One might say "freedom," but what of the freedom of the black man to live in a society that does not discriminate against him because of the color of his skin?
    I don't base such things on "core American Value"s but on rights. I advocate freedom of speech for all humans in the world, as their human right, not as an "American Value".
    I said earlier in this thread (Post #194),

    My own take is that [anti-discrimination laws for civilians]:
    • violate property rights (tantamount to theft or slavery, due to lack of consent)
    • are a form of thoughtcrime
    • violate freedom of association
    • can violate freedom of speech
    • can violate freedom of conscience (including freedom of religion)
    • tend to be arbitrary and inconsistent
    • may have undesirable side effects

    Freedom from discrimination is not a right because forcibly preventing discrimination is a violation of human rights. In a conflict of freedoms, rights decide the question. (in my moral framework, anyway, as you would say.)

    I believe in the constitutional protections against free speech. The government should not be allowed to impinge on free speech, for all of the reasons cited by the FFs. But I do not believe that we, as citizens, should tolerate the hateful speech of those who espouse racist, bigoted views. We need to call them out, we need to decry them, and we need to do everything legally and morally possible to eliminate them from the public sphere.

    All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
    I hold the same position regarding property rights, freedom of association, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joel
    I view your bolded statement as abhorrent as I would if you had said "I am saying that I have the same right to your body--including sexual intimacy--that you extend to anyone else."
    If you were a sex worker - yes. If you are simply a married person, no. For what I would hope are obvious reasons.
    It's not at all obvious to me. Please explain.
    And we can also include non-married, non-sex-workers. Suppose say someone has been rather promiscuous. Should we then declare them legally a "public accomodation" who must accept all who ask? Why not?
    I've always thought it was arbitrary that anti-discrimination laws treat material exchanges any different from other human interactions. Why not ban discrimination in choosing friends or who you allow into your home, buying rather than selling, etc.?

    Quote Originally Posted by Joel
    And, using the same example, you might have some technical point, when viewed in a certain way, that such a law regarding people's body would not force anyone to have sexual intercourse with another, because after all they could avoid it by choosing celibacy. Or a bigger kid says, "If you ever wear a red shirt again, I'm going to beat you up and take your lunch money." Then when he does beat you up you can't say you didn't consent to the beating and theft because after all you could have refrained from wearing red shirts. Or a woman wasn't technically raped because she essentially consented to it by dressing a certain way and walking in a certain part of town?
    I have no idea what you are trying to say with this last paragraph.
    You claimed that because someone could refrain from serving at all, that therefore "No man is being forced by law to serve another." I was offering here what I see as counter-examples to the same reasoning. Or at least showing that what you say is true at most in a narrow technical sense that I don't find morally significant, because consent hasn't actually been given.

  8. Amen Zymologist amen'd this post.
  9. #688
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,392
    Amen (Given)
    2065
    Amen (Received)
    1427
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    No - it is not. There is no 'Biblical injunction' against interracial marriages in any sort of general sense.
    There are several biblical injunctions that were used to justify banning interracial marriage until quite recently. Religious people have a tendency to make the bible say what they want it to say.

    Again, the issue of same-sex marriage involves two conflicting elements. The freedom of religious exercise. And ostensibly the prohibition against discrimination.
    One personís freedoms cannot not override or take precedence over the freedoms of another.

    1) same-sex actions, for the purpose of the religious element, fall under the same category as adultery, fornication, pedophilia, bestiality. Acting out a sexual desire is a choice, not a requirement.
    Nonetheless, personal beliefs cannot justify discrimination against other citizens who are acting lawfully. It really is none of your business whether couples act on their sexual desires or not.

    2) same-sex attraction - for the purposes of this discussion - have been assumed to be an inherited characteristic like race or sex.
    Yes!

    Nothing ANYWHERE states that a human being is obligated to act on a sexual attraction. In fact, we are all required by law NOT to act on a sexual attraction without the consent of the partner(s).
    Certainly, informed consent is necessary for any sexual activity

    Religions EVERYWHERE prohibit certain kinds of sexual ACTIONS over an above what is legal. Our laws require we honor such prohibitions.
    According to the Civil Rights Acts your laws quite rightly forbid you discriminating against other citizens on the basis of personal beliefs.

    same-sex marriage is a ceremony that among other things sanctions same-sex actions between the married parties.
    Yes of course. This is what marriage entails.

    A religious person can't participate in a ceremony that sanctions sexual actions that are prohibited by their religion. Nor can the state (per the establishment clause) require they do so.
    No person is expected participate in such a ceremony, unless invited, merely provide service...in this instance a wedding cake. Itís what bakers do.

    A religious person does not have to express ANY bigotry or discrimination against any person in following moral mandates against sexual ACTIONS. They need only be allowed not to participate or give implicit blessing to sexual actions that are against their religion's moral code.
    Personal beliefs do not warrant special treatment in business. Why should they?

    To the point: the issue here are the actions that are the choices of the participants and the morality of a ceremony that attempts to sanction those actions, not the physical or genetic make up of the participants in the ceremony.
    The point is that according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 no operator of a public accommodation such as a cake shop is permitted to discriminate against citizens who are acting in accordance with law. The law allows same sex marriages.
    Last edited by Tassman; Today at 10:01 AM.
    ďHe felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.Ē - Douglas Adams.

  10. #689
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,946
    Amen (Given)
    100
    Amen (Received)
    874
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    There are several biblical injunctions that were used to justify banning interracial marriage until quite recently. [snide comment purposefully removed]
    I said there are no explicit injunctions in the Bible specifically against interracial marriage as a general command or statement. I stand by that. You can debate that if you like.


    One personís freedoms cannot not override or take precedence over the freedoms of another.
    Then you would agree the baker has the freedom to chose to create what he wants to create. Good.


    Nonetheless, personal beliefs cannot justify discrimination against other citizens who are acting lawfully. It really is none of your business whether couples act on their sexual desires or not.
    Ah, but now you wish to take away one persons freedom to practice his religion in favor of another persons 'right' not to be discriminated against. So what you are really then saying is that if I have a 'right' to something, then I am allowed to take away another persons freedom in order to be afforded that 'right'?

    This is where the conflict arises. We have two principles we believe in that are in direct opposition to each other. Your approach, not to put too fine a point on it, is to almost completely disregard religious freedom at the expense of even the most minute form of discrimination, which means you place almost no value on religious freedom. Especially when that religious freedom involves a religion that professes belief in God (as opposed to you own position there is no God).

    In so many ways that is in fact the crux of this entire argument. Those that value religious freedom and believe it is at least as important as issues of discrimination, and those that regard religious freedom as a heavy burden, a hindrance to what in their minds are 'better' goals.



    ...


    Certainly, informed consent is necessary for any sexual activity
    indeed


    According to the Civil Rights Acts your laws quite rightly forbid you discriminating against other citizens on the basis of personal beliefs.
    But you are misapplying that here. You want the baker to be forced to participate in what he believes is immoral, which takes away his right to freely practice his religion, in order to avoid what you believe is discrimination based on personal beliefs. So you take what is meant to protect and turn it into what is tantamount to slavery. The baker now has no free will or personal choice in a matter of what he will or will not create, even when to do so violates a moral directive of his religion. You can do this because you place almost no value on religious freedom, and see even the most minor of potential slights has having more importance.


    Yes of course. This is what marriage entails.
    But same-sex marriage sanctions sexual activity that is immoral in certain religion. Activity I must remind you is a choice and not in any way required for life. I must assume then that you would require the baker to make a cake for a swingers 'wedding', even though they explicitly will approve of and engage in adultery as a matter of course? So that in effect, no person is allowed in your world to base their actions on the moral directives of their religion. Religion is fine as long as it doesn't have any visible effect on the people that practice it? Again, quite clearly you have place almost no value at all on religious freedom. However, our constitution does not share your opinion. In fact, while discrimniation, especially as regards a persons 'sexual orientation' is not found in our constitution, the freedom to exercise ones religion free from interference from the state is guaranteed in our constitution. So you see - a good deal of the problem here is that you do not share the priorities and values found in the constitution.


    No person is expected participate in such a ceremony, unless invited, merely provide service...in this instance a wedding cake. Itís what bakers do.
    This is a very disingenuous argument. Or does an artist that paints for Hitler have no moral obligation to refuse? After all, it's merely providing a service. It's what painters do. The reality is you don't think its immoral and you could care less what the morality or religious convictions of the baker are - in this instance. but if this baker was refusing to bake a cake the represented something you yourself found offensive, you'd be all over his right to refuse to create that cake. In FACT - that is EXACTLY what Colorado did in this case. There were all in with the folks refusing to make cakes that were offensive to their morality, and all over the baker that in their minds was not acting morally in their minds.


    Personal beliefs do not warrant special treatment in business. Why should they?
    Ok - so now you would deny the right to have days off for a Jewish employee to celebrate Yom Kippur, or Rosh Hashannah? Or a muslim employee should not be allowed to say his daily prayers? Or if the boss wants all his employees to head down to the pub, then the ones that are Christian and do not belief in drinking alcohol must attend? Or the Airlines should not be able to refuse to carry children separated from their parents by Trump's policies. After all, it's just buisiness.


    Tassman - your arguments to support your position are not at all far from the arguments used by the guards at the Nazi internment camps to justify their actions. They also believed they had no responsibility to act according to personal morals and refuse to follow orders. If we value having people act according to personal morals and beliefs, then we can't be at the same time arguing they can shelve those personal moral and beliefs anytime 'It's just buisiness".


    The point is that according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 no operator of a public accommodation such as a cake shop is permitted to discriminate against citizens who are acting in accordance with law. The law allows same sex marriages.
    I'm afraid that decision now has come right up against the constitution in these sorts of cases by denying those same operators the right to practice their religion without interference from the state. And that is why I have said, and continue to say, this issue puts TWO critical elements of our society directly against each other. And I see the solution being the recognition that sexual attraction is not the same as sexual action. We expect and require ALL citizens to control their sexual attraction according to moral standards. And we recognize the rights of an individual to practice their religion - which must necessarily include the right to act in accordance with its sexual moral dictates. A same-sex marriage sanctions same-sex actions which are immoral in traditional Christian and Muslim religion. So no traditional Christian or Muslim can be compelled to participate in any event that expresses approval for sexual actions deemed immoral by their religion. When you force the baker to create the sort of specialized and personalized cake as was requested in this case for a same-sex marriage, you force them to participate in a ceremony that sanctions immoral actions as their religion defines them.



    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; Today at 12:48 PM.
    Jorge's trueorigins paper: "...it is known that other volcanic features match what is usually associated with impact craters including ... shatter cones and crystal deformations"

    Planetary Science Institute: "Shatter cones Ö are found in only two places on Earth, 1) in nuclear test sites and 2) meteorite impact structures. They are formed as a result of the high pressure, high velocity shock wave ...

    maximum pressures from 45 to 200 times greater than found in volcanic events (2->20 Gpa)

  11. Amen seer, mossrose, alaskazimm amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •