Page 4 of 30 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 293

Thread: Same Sex Marriages, Florists, and Bakers

  1. #31
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    23,584
    Amen (Given)
    1537
    Amen (Received)
    4697
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    Reading some of your back and forth with Carpe, it seems to me that there's some unspoken assumptions about your view of scripture as an authority. You didn't pick up a Bible one day, go into a trance and say "I will obey" like a robot, or anything, correct? Typically there is a chain of logic and reasoning that proceeded your accepting scripture as authoritarial. Perhaps the grandness of the universe, and the accomplishments of mankind has convinced you that this couldn't have all been accidental, and that there was a transcendent cause behind it all, or perhaps you intuitively believe that life has meaning, and that people have intrinsic value, and you accept that this value is imparted or associated with being created in God's image. Or maybe you saw how Christ touched and changed the lives of others in powerful and positive ways, and also wanted to live a more than abundant life that allowed you to be a positive influence in the lives of others, or maybe you witnessed miracles, and it convinced you that there is more than this. My point is that, while scripture may be your final authority (though it's probably more accurate to say that Jesus is your final authority), there was good reason for you to believe that the Bible was authoritative, correct? Carpe seems to insist that your acceptance of scripture as an authority is completely devoid of any corresponding reason or logic, and I find that hard to believe.
    You are correct, and laid out the reasons quite well...
    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...

  2. Amen Adrift, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  3. #32
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,653
    Amen (Given)
    5500
    Amen (Received)
    5394
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    Carpe seems to insist that your acceptance of scripture as an authority is completely devoid of any corresponding reason or logic, and I find that hard to believe.
    I suspect that's because as a moral relativist, carpe has arrived at his own notions of rightness and wrongness largely on the basis of what he happens to "feel" is correct, and he assumes that Christians rely on the authority of scripture for the same reason.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  4. #33
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,863
    Amen (Given)
    24
    Amen (Received)
    1050
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Do you deny that food is necessary for survival, and that regular meals are necessary for good health?
    No. I deny that being denied a single meal at a diner is an example of "undue hardship" under your "survival" model. But this is a tangent, so I'l leave the last word on this to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    What's ridiculous is the straw man you just constructed.
    I actually took your statement to its extreme - but accurate - example. It's not a strawman. You're trying to get the "slippery slope" argument in, and I'm pointing out that it's ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Are you referring to the same First Amendment that should protect a religious business owner from being forced to provide a service in a way that conflicts with his core values?
    Now THERE's a strawman. Again - no one is being "forced" to do anything. The business owner has a choice, just as the diner owner had a choice in the early 60s and 70s.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    We're only on page three, and you're already arguing against yourself.
    Hardly.
    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

  5. #34
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,653
    Amen (Given)
    5500
    Amen (Received)
    5394
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I actually took your statement to its extreme...
    And turned it into a flimsy straw man in the process.

    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    The business owner has a choice...
    Right... either compromise his moral values, or close up shop. Some choice.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  6. Amen NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  7. #35
    Professor Catholicity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    the neighbor of the yellow brick road
    Faith
    Ecumenical Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    4,062
    Amen (Given)
    1138
    Amen (Received)
    1625
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    The other thread was closed at the request of the original poster. Since it was not a subject issue in general, I'm going out on a limb and assuming it is OK to simply open a new thread for those who want to continue the discussion. I have responded to Jim, Seer, Tab, and Sparko in this one OP.

    --------------------------------------------------------------

    The discussion with Jim was basically about the balance between religious freedom and civil rights. I had posed two questions of Jim:

    1) Would you defend the right the members of a religion who own a business (e.g., a diner on the town's main street) to have a "white's only" policy because they believe "god saves only the white person; it is sinful to have any interactions with a black person." This is what their holy book tells them.

    2) Would you defend the right the members of a religion who own a business (e.g., a diner located in a private commune accessible only to the members of the community) to have a "white's only" policy because they believe "god saves only the white person; it is sinful to have any interactions with a black person." This is what their holy book tells them.

    Jim - I hope you see this!
    So two things here. The US has laws that protect business owners. Frankly I am glad, as a retail worker, we have the right to refuse business with anyone and It allows us to tell vulgar customers, thieves and other people that they MUST LEAVE the store. My store uses this policy. It also means that someone can set up a business to serve anyone they choose. Their policies might be terrible and I don't defend them in anyway, but the laws exist to protect a business owner's right to serve or not serve. If you don't like that, you are free to become a senator and try to change it, and of course you the customer are free to do business with anyone you want, so if you despise someone's practices (e.g Wal Mart) you don't have to shop there. Its elitist and privileged to think you don't have consumer rights.
    Secondly skin color is somewhat of a strawman. A person cannot help prevent or change their skin color and the evils of refusing to do business with a skin color are recognized. A person with homosexual orientation CAN choose their behavior, same as I can choose what I want to order to drink. You don't have to have sex to live. Therefore your argument is moot. IF a person believes eating meat is wrong you forcing them to eat meat is just as sinful. If a person believes that engaging in homosexual sex is wrong, then forcing them to engage in that practice (e.g. forced participation in their marriage) is equally as wrong.
    A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
    George Bernard Shaw

  8. Amen Adrift, NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  9. #36
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,863
    Amen (Given)
    24
    Amen (Received)
    1050
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    And even with the whole ADA thing, there's always a "reasonable accommodation" aspect. You don't just expect the business to shut down if they can't comply with every expectation of ADA.
    That's correct, hence the "undue hardship" clause. Unfortunately, the still leaves the "would you allow a church to break the law" problem. Most have agreed that a church wanting to practice human sacrifice because "their god said so" wouldn't be permitted to do so - so we have already established that "religious freedom" has its boundaries. So when it comes to religious practices, there are three sets:

    1) Those that are permitted within the church and in the public arena.
    2) Those that are permitted within the church but NOT in the public arena
    3) Those that are NOT permitted within the church or the public arena.

    A church-backed demonstration against abortion would be an example of 1).
    If a church practiced nude rituals, that would be an example of 2)
    Human sacrifice or polygamy would be an example of 3) (though I personally think the government has no place defining marriage for churches)

    So the question becomes where does engaging in prejudicial/discriminatory actions against a segment of the population fall? Folks here are arguing it is another example of 1). I am arguing that it is another example of 2).
    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

  10. #37
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,863
    Amen (Given)
    24
    Amen (Received)
    1050
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    That doesn't make sense,
    ...to you. And we've already established that you don't understand the arguments, Seer. You don't need to keep repeating it. It just makes you look foolish.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    how is ethical relativism, where every individual or culture is the final authority on moral issues any better than relying on Scripture?
    "Relying on scripture" is just another example of ethical relativism, Seer. You have subjectively and relatively decided to hitch your moral wagon to your interpretation of the scriptures. It is doubly subjective in so far as you made the subjective choice to do so (i.e., you could have chosen something else) and you are the arbiter of the specific interpretation you choose to accept. That you declare it "absolute" and "universal" and "objective" doesn't make it so. You've simply locked your morality to the subjective/relative writings of a small group of men now dead 2-3.5 millennia. Technically, I think that makes it triply relative!

    So the question is, how is YOUR subjective/relative moral framework better/worse than mine. The answer is, your are locked to a static model that is not subject to examination and argumentation. The only form your arguments can take is "what does the book say/mean?" The rest of us can discuss impacts on society, internal consistency, underlying value structures, and a whole host of issues. All you can discuss is "is it in the book?"

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    It seems to me that you have just made moral disagreement a thousand fold worse.
    Moral disagreement is a fact of life. It is a fact for Christians (and other absolutists/objectivists/univeralists). It is a fact for nonchristians. It is a fact for relativists/subjectivists. Here's a simple analog. Let's say one group of people believes that cars move, and another believes that cars actually stand still and the planet moves. If the latter group finally acknowledged that it's the cars moving under their own power and not the planet moving, would it worsen or improved the incidence of car accidents? Acknowledging the reality in front of our noses doesn't change the consequences of that reality. You, my friend, are an example of a person who looks at the car and says "the planet is moving." All around you is evidence that morality IS relative/subjective. Even your own morality is relative/subjective. But you tenacious cling to the illusion that you are locked onto an absolute/objective framework. You can not make the case for this. Your morality is no more absolute/objective than mine would be if I elected to use the contents of the Kama Sutra as my moral basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    When you force the religious baker, by law, to serve the gay couple you have certainly limited the baker's freedom. That is self evident.
    Since I have never advocated "forcing" anyone to do something or provide a service, I have no further response. This is a continuing example of twisting an argument to say something that was not said, and then arguing against your own strawman. You asked me to give you examples - here is one. And if history repeats itself, you will simply continue to put forward this false narrative and insist it is what I am saying. Your insistence doesn't make it so - and you're wasting a lot of time arguing against points I'm not making and positions I'm not taking.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    So you would not force the baker by law to make the cake for a gay wedding?
    I would require ANY business person that offers a service to do so without bigotry/prejudice/discrimination. No business person is forced to provide a service. They are simply required, if they do so, to do so equitably. That is a condition of doing business in the public sphere.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    I have no problem with ending Jim Crow, but when it comes to private business and personal interaction that is where I draw the line. And what I do in the market place does not affect everyone, that is just silly.
    Seer, I have to wonder if you have ever had the experience of walking into a place of business and being told that the service offered there is not available to you simply because of who you are and what you represent (to the proprietor). I have to wonder if you have any idea what life is like when you are never sure how you are going to be received in the next place of business. There is a reason we have anti-discrimination laws for services, employment, and compensation. It has to do with all of us being equal under the law - and all of us having a basic right to life, liberty, and happiness. All of us having the right to live in a society where who we are as a person is not the basis for being denied services available to others. I am partial to the writings of MLK. I absolutely agree with his statement, "“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." And no, I don't consider it "silly."

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Never mind the fact that there is no Constitutional principle for you to appeal to. It is antithetical to personal freedom. But you leftists don't care about such things as long as you can force us to conform to your morally twisted thinking.
    I'll leave this rant to you. It's so filled with inaccuracies, I wouldn't even know where to begin.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-11-2019 at 07:25 AM.
    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

  11. #38
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,863
    Amen (Given)
    24
    Amen (Received)
    1050
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    Reading some of your back and forth with Carpe, it seems to me that there's some unspoken assumptions about your view of scripture as an authority. You didn't pick up a Bible one day, go into a trance and say "I will obey" like a robot, or anything, correct? Typically there is a chain of logic and reasoning that proceeded your accepting scripture as authoritarial. Perhaps the grandness of the universe, and the accomplishments of mankind has convinced you that this couldn't have all been accidental, and that there was a transcendent cause behind it all, or perhaps you intuitively believe that life has meaning, and that people have intrinsic value, and you accept that this value is imparted or associated with being created in God's image. Or maybe you saw how Christ touched and changed the lives of others in powerful and positive ways, and also wanted to live a more than abundant life that allowed you to be a positive influence in the lives of others, or maybe you witnessed miracles, and it convinced you that there is more than this. My point is that, while scripture may be your final authority (though it's probably more accurate to say that Jesus is your final authority), there was good reason for you to believe that the Bible was authoritative, correct? Carpe seems to insist that your acceptance of scripture as an authority is completely devoid of any corresponding reason or logic, and I find that hard to believe.
    No - that is not Michel's position. I am reasonably sure Seer had reasons for selecting the bible as his moral framework. He has never struct me as an irrational man. We ALL have reasons why we have chosen the specific moral framework we have chosen.
    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

  12. #39
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,863
    Amen (Given)
    24
    Amen (Received)
    1050
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I suspect that's because as a moral relativist, carpe has arrived at his own notions of rightness and wrongness largely on the basis of what he happens to "feel" is correct, and he assumes that Christians rely on the authority of scripture for the same reason.
    Why "feeling" can be a guide (sometimes), it is not a rational basis for adopting a formal position. It might be a basis for deciding what color I want my house to be, or even whether I want the column supporting my house made of concrete or steel. IN the realm of morality, "feeling" may be an indicator that something needs attention - but that is as far as it goes. If you cannot articulate a reason for holding a position beyond "it feels right," then the position is being held on flimsy evidence.
    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

  13. #40
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,863
    Amen (Given)
    24
    Amen (Received)
    1050
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    And turned it into a flimsy straw man in the process.
    So - simply pointed out the absurdity of your statement with an absurd implementation of it. Face it, MM, your statement was, at best, hyperbolic. In general, it was simply false. That was the point of my extreme example. I realize you and Trump are fans of the hyperbolic. I am not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Right... either compromise his moral values, or close up shop. Some choice.
    First, this is potentially a false dichotomy. There are a host of bakers out there NOT making wedding cakes. There are a host of flower shops out there NOT providing flowers to weddings, and they seem to be doing quite well.

    Second, your argument boils down to "it's too hard!" Sorry, MM, but sometimes following ones conscience involves pain and sacrifice. There are no guarantees that it will be easy. "It's too hard" is not an argument.
    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

Posting Permissions

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