Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Advertising company forced (?) to remove Greg Laurie's billboards.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I frankly do not care, Sparko. The bible is simply wrong, and the men who wrote it had the same error in their moral reasoning that you and those who think like you do.
    fortunately the US constitution actually DOES care and protects faith-based beliefs. Your caring doesn't matter.


    No - it is pointing out the the entire position "same-sex marriage is immoral" and "same-sex intimacy is immoral" is not sustainable, because it is rooted in defining an act as immoral because of the genetic identity of the participants. Historically, such moral codes have been overturned, as they were when the morality of the act was based on race.


    Oh for pity's sake, Sparko, stop whining. Anyone with a moral perspective is going to see someone who acts differently as moral or immoral. And everyone seeks to influence their society to act according to the norms they see as moral. You yourself want your moral norms to prevail, and want to see SCOTUS reverse the law on same sex marriage (you've said as much in other posts), thereby imposing your moral view on other people for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Now you object because I believe this man's moral position is immoral? You're not being consistent. If it's OK for you to point to same-sex couples and label them immoral, then there is no reason I should not be able to do exactly the same thing when I see something I believe is immoral.

    You're right. It is immoral to me, and those who think like me. It is perfectly moral to you and those who think like you. So there is a conflict, which will either be resolved by discussion and reasoning, or (if that fails) it will be resolved by isolation/separation or conflict. That's how it works. That's how it has always worked. In this case, that conflict is happening in the courts of law and has (so far) been moving in the direction of acceptance of same-sex couples. That may reverse for a while with the new composition of SCOTUS. However, the tide of public opinion has strongly turned, so if SCOTUS does act to deny those rights, we will probably see a responding shift to the left until nature of SCOTUS is changed. That is the pattern history shows us. Rights, in the U.S, tend to be extended - not contracted.
    As someone wise said in another thread, "This appears to be a personal opinion I don't agree with"

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      You're right. It is immoral to me, and those who think like me. It is perfectly moral to you and those who think like you. So there is a conflict, which will either be resolved by discussion and reasoning, or (if that fails) it will be resolved by isolation/separation or conflict. That's how it works. That's how it has always worked. In this case, that conflict is happening in the courts of law and has (so far) been moving in the direction of acceptance of same-sex couples. That may reverse for a while with the new composition of SCOTUS. However, the tide of public opinion has strongly turned, so if SCOTUS does act to deny those rights, we will probably see a responding shift to the left until nature of SCOTUS is changed. That is the pattern history shows us. Rights, in the U.S, tend to be extended - not contracted.
      The problem is Carp, the free exercise of religion is a Constitutional right, there is no Constitutional right not to be discriminated against by a private business. So if the Supreme Court stays true to the Constitution the free exercise of religion will always trump something that is not Constitutional right.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        fortunately the US constitution actually DOES care and protects faith-based beliefs. Your caring doesn't matter.
        As I noted to Seer, with limits. The constitution does not protect any/all faith-based beliefs.

        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        As someone wise said in another thread, "This appears to be a personal opinion I don't agree with"
        Of course it is. Morality is ultimately a form of personal opinion. That is why yours is different from mine and I'm sure you would even have differing moral positions with Seer and other Christians. That's why we discuss/debate moral concepts. When we cannot agree...isolate/separate or contend.
        Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-13-2018, 02:23 PM.
        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

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          The problem is Carp, the free exercise of religion is a Constitutional right, there is no Constitutional right not to be discriminated against by a private business. So if the Supreme Court stays true to the Constitution the free exercise of religion will always trump something that is not Constitutional right.
          I've responded to this before. See my previous posts.
          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

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            I've responded to this before. See my previous posts.
            Right and you were wrong then too...
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              As I noted to Seer, with limits. The constitution does not protect any/all faith-based beliefs.
              duh. If it interferes with someone else's rights it would not be allowed. But nobody has a right to force someone to do something against their will or their faith. So there is no such conflict here.


              Of course it is. Morality is ultimately a form of personal opinion. That is why yours is different from mine and I'm sure you would even have differing moral positions with Seer and other Christians. That's why we discuss/debate moral concepts. When we cannot agree...isolate/separate or contend.
              except you want to impose your morality on everyone else despite believing they are just personal preferences.

              So do I, but in my case I believe that morals are objective and apply to everyone regardless if they believe it or not. You can't say the same.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                duh. If it interferes with someone else's rights it would not be allowed. But nobody has a right to force someone to do something against their will or their faith. So there is no such conflict here.
                Everyone has the right to live in a country where they are treated fairly and justly, where who and what they are is not denigrated and they are not reduced to second-class citizens. After all, government exists to enable the pursuit of happiness, and ensure justice for all.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                except you want to impose your morality on everyone else despite believing they are just personal preferences.
                And you want to impose yours, despite it being a personal preference.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                So do I, but in my case I believe that morals are objective and apply to everyone regardless if they believe it or not. You can't say the same.
                Whether you believe they are is irrelevant, since they are not. You can also claim that everyone has to do as you say because you are actually an omniscient god. That wouldn't be true either. Morality is what it is. You don't get a pass because you believe you have access to "THE TRUTH!" The world is full of people who think that way. Amazingly, most of them don't agree with each other. Go figure...
                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

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Everyone has the right to live in a country where they are treated fairly and justly, where who and what they are is not denigrated and they are not reduced to second-class citizens. After all, government exists to enable the pursuit of happiness, and ensure justice for all.
                  right, which is why it is wrong to force someone to create a cake for you if they believe it is celebrating a sin. Or to force someone to print a billboard for you, or a Tshirt for you. or perform any labor you don't want to.



                  And you want to impose yours, despite it being a personal preference.
                  To me it is not a personal preference. It is objectively true. The way you argue for what you think is morally right, shows me that you believe it too, despite protestations to the contrary.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                    You moved the goalposts from Constitution (14th Amendment) to Law (Civil Rights Act), which is subordinate to the Constitution.
                    The Civil Rights Act guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws; it is grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection laws and it remains the law of the land until such time, if ever, the law is changed.

                    In such a case, SOMEONE'S rights MUST supersede someone else's.
                    Given that equal protection under the law applies to ALL citizens, no one person’s rights can supersede those of another’s. Freedom to practice religion does not necessarily translate to “freedom to discriminate against minorities”.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      The Civil Rights Act guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws; it is grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection laws and it remains the law of the land until such time, if ever, the law is changed.
                      The rules regarding public accommodations in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have nothing to do with the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, using the Fourteenth Amendment as rationale for such a law was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases (1875), which was unanimously re-affirmed as recently as 2000 in United States v Morrison (I say unanimously because while the decision in United States v Morrison was 5-4, both the majority and the dissent accepted the Civil Rights Cases as correctly decided). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had its portion on public accommodations be grounded in the Commerce Clause instead, which is why there's various restrictions on what businesses it applies to so so that it falls within the rule of regulating interstate commerce (e.g. a restaurant is exempt from the law if it does not serve out-of-state travelers and only use ingredients from within the state). If it was justified under the Fourteenth Amendment, as you claim, there wouldn't have been any need for those restrictions.

                      Additionally, sexual orientation is not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 anyway. The whole gay wedding cake case was about a separate Colorado state law that did include sexual orientation as a protected class, and the question was whether the way the law was being applied was a First Amendment violation or not. Neither the Civil Rights Act of 1964 nor the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had anything to do with the case (the Fourteenth Amendment technically did apply to the case, but only in that it applies the restrictions of the First Amendment to state law).

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                        The rules regarding public accommodations in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have nothing to do with the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, using the Fourteenth Amendment as rationale for such a law was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases (1875), which was unanimously re-affirmed as recently as 2000 in United States v Morrison (I say unanimously because while the decision in United States v Morrison was 5-4, both the majority and the dissent accepted the Civil Rights Cases as correctly decided). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had its portion on public accommodations be grounded in the Commerce Clause instead, which is why there's various restrictions on what businesses it applies to so so that it falls within the rule of regulating interstate commerce (e.g. a restaurant is exempt from the law if it does not serve out-of-state travelers and only use ingredients from within the state). If it was justified under the Fourteenth Amendment, as you claim, there wouldn't have been any need for those restrictions.
                        I’ve said numerous times in various threads that the Civil Rights Act was legislated under several different parts of the Constitution...not just the fourteenth amendment...notably its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.

                        Additionally, sexual orientation is not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 anyway. The whole gay wedding cake case was about a separate Colorado state law that did include sexual orientation as a protected class, and the question was whether the way the law was being applied was a First Amendment violation or not. Neither the Civil Rights Act of 1964 nor the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had anything to do with the case (the Fourteenth Amendment technically did apply to the case, but only in that it applies the restrictions of the First Amendment to state law).
                        Sexual Orientation is a Protected Class. The Federal Government's equal opportunity employment policy was amended in 1998 by President Clinton to include sexual orientation as a protected class. You are correct that under federal law, sexual orientation is not a protected class however, but many state and local legislatures consider it to be. And, it’s increasingly recognised that the intention of the Civil Rights Act is to protect all citizens, including LGBT’s, from discrimination. as per this ruling:

                        https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider.../#5d8833755ab9

                        Why would one specific category of citizen be excluded under the law?
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          The Civil Rights Act guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws; it is grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection laws and it remains the law of the land until such time, if ever, the law is changed.



                          Given that equal protection under the law applies to ALL citizens, no one person’s rights can supersede those of another’s. Freedom to practice religion does not necessarily translate to “freedom to discriminate against minorities”.
                          Repeating the same nonsense over and over doesn't make it true. This has been answered several times already. You are wrong. The supreme court even said so. Give it up.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            You are merely trying to rephrase it in a way to dismiss the comparison, carp. I can say the billboard company is saying, "No billboards if the client is Christian"
                            ...
                            The discrimination was against Christians buying billboards.
                            Given the religious demographics of the US, I find it highly unlikely that the billboard company doesn't sell advertising space to Christians. They'd go out of business.

                            As usual you are mixing up refusing the design with refusing the customer.
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              As usual you are mixing up refusing the design with refusing the customer.
                              Like refusing a particular design on a cake, got it...
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Roy View Post
                                Given the religious demographics of the US, I find it highly unlikely that the billboard company doesn't sell advertising space to Christians. They'd go out of business.

                                As usual you are mixing up refusing the design with refusing the customer.
                                I was restructuring my statement to fit Carp's, like he did to try to show there was a difference between the cake and the billboard. I don't think the baker was refusing the customer, but the message. I don't think the billboard was refusing the customer but the message.

                                I believe the billboard company has the right to refuse to print any message from any client at any time. Just like the baker. Nobody should be forced to create a message in support of something they don't want to.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X