Total Posts:397|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Religious Freedom Under Fire in the U.S.?

RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There have been 3 major incidences involving the refusal to service a gay-wedding that have gained notoriety. Whenever a State religious freedom bill is introduced, generally these 3 incidences are a reference point. What is notable about these 3 incidences, involving a bakery in Colorado, a wedding photography business in New Mexico, and a floral business in Washington, is that they've each made it clear that their refusal is strictly based on servicing a same-sex wedding. Not refusal to service gay people in any other context. In fact, the owner of the floral company was friends with, and provided floral service for, one of the members of the gay couple.

Right off the bat, each associated party is accused of being bigots, homophobes, etc. They are accused of discrimination. Upon reviewing these 3 articles, 2 being relatively neutral, and 1 siding with the gay couple, can you honestly say these issues involve discrimination?

http://aclu-co.org...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.seattletimes.com...

From a prior conversation with SkepticAlone:

Roderick Spode: I think we're seeing maybe the first (major) signs of religious freedom coming into question. As it stands, where I would lack freedom today would be if I were to open a business that dealt in weddings.

SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?


SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 3:38:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There have been 3 major incidences involving the refusal to service a gay-wedding that have gained notoriety. Whenever a State religious freedom bill is introduced, generally these 3 incidences are a reference point. What is notable about these 3 incidences, involving a bakery in Colorado, a wedding photography business in New Mexico, and a floral business in Washington, is that they've each made it clear that their refusal is strictly based on servicing a same-sex wedding. Not refusal to service gay people in any other context. In fact, the owner of the floral company was friends with, and provided floral service for, one of the members of the gay couple.

Right off the bat, each associated party is accused of being bigots, homophobes, etc. They are accused of discrimination. Upon reviewing these 3 articles, 2 being relatively neutral, and 1 siding with the gay couple, can you honestly say these issues involve discrimination?


http://aclu-co.org...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.seattletimes.com...

From a prior conversation with SkepticAlone:

Roderick Spode: I think we're seeing maybe the first (major) signs of religious freedom coming into question. As it stands, where I would lack freedom today would be if I were to open a business that dealt in weddings.


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?


SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

In a word, no. People that were previously too afraid to stand up to religious intolerance are beginning to do so and it's pissing the 'righteous' off that they're being told they can't act like it's still the dark ages. There is no one impinging on anyone's right to worship and believe whatever they like, just on their ability to treat 'sinners' and others differently than they treat believers in any secular business setting.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 4:14:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There have been 3 major incidences involving the refusal to service a gay-wedding that have gained notoriety. Whenever a State religious freedom bill is introduced, generally these 3 incidences are a reference point. What is notable about these 3 incidences, involving a bakery in Colorado, a wedding photography business in New Mexico, and a floral business in Washington, is that they've each made it clear that their refusal is strictly based on servicing a same-sex wedding. Not refusal to service gay people in any other context. In fact, the owner of the floral company was friends with, and provided floral service for, one of the members of the gay couple.

Right off the bat, each associated party is accused of being bigots, homophobes, etc. They are accused of discrimination. Upon reviewing these 3 articles, 2 being relatively neutral, and 1 siding with the gay couple, can you honestly say these issues involve discrimination?


http://aclu-co.org...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.seattletimes.com...

From a prior conversation with SkepticAlone:

Roderick Spode: I think we're seeing maybe the first (major) signs of religious freedom coming into question. As it stands, where I would lack freedom today would be if I were to open a business that dealt in weddings.


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?


SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

I think you misunderstand the hypothetical, Roderick. If I interpret my holy book to mean I should do something illegal, then do I have the right to break the law on the grounds of "religious freedom"? It seems like an obvious "no", and there are verses in the Bible that say as much.

Romans 13:1
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.


If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

I agree with what dhardage said above - freedom to worship is not being hampered, but discrimination is. Discrimination for religious reasons is still discrimination and is not protected by the Establishment clause.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 8:37:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There have been 3 major incidences involving the refusal to service a gay-wedding that have gained notoriety. Whenever a State religious freedom bill is introduced, generally these 3 incidences are a reference point. What is notable about these 3 incidences, involving a bakery in Colorado, a wedding photography business in New Mexico, and a floral business in Washington, is that they've each made it clear that their refusal is strictly based on servicing a same-sex wedding. Not refusal to service gay people in any other context. In fact, the owner of the floral company was friends with, and provided floral service for, one of the members of the gay couple.

Right off the bat, each associated party is accused of being bigots, homophobes, etc. They are accused of discrimination. Upon reviewing these 3 articles, 2 being relatively neutral, and 1 siding with the gay couple, can you honestly say these issues involve discrimination?


http://aclu-co.org...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.seattletimes.com...

From a prior conversation with SkepticAlone:

Roderick Spode: I think we're seeing maybe the first (major) signs of religious freedom coming into question. As it stands, where I would lack freedom today would be if I were to open a business that dealt in weddings.


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?


SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

Those incidents seem more like the abuse of religious freedom thank anything else.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 8:38:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 8:32:01 PM, dee-em wrote:
Roderick is riding his hobby horse again. Giddy-up!

What's his hobby horse? I scarcely read his posts and dont know.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 8:44:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 8:38:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 8:32:01 PM, dee-em wrote:
Roderick is riding his hobby horse again. Giddy-up!

What's his hobby horse? I scarcely read his posts and dont know.

The subject of the OP. How Christians who refuse to provide services to gay couples for a wedding are being fined for discrimination. This is at least the third time he has raised this same issue. He's a bit like Ben Shapiro - no argument ever persuades him, no answer ever satisfies him. He's a dog with a bone and he's not letting go.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 8:45:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There have been 3 major incidences involving the refusal to service a gay-wedding that have gained notoriety. Whenever a State religious freedom bill is introduced, generally these 3 incidences are a reference point. What is notable about these 3 incidences, involving a bakery in Colorado, a wedding photography business in New Mexico, and a floral business in Washington, is that they've each made it clear that their refusal is strictly based on servicing a same-sex wedding. Not refusal to service gay people in any other context. In fact, the owner of the floral company was friends with, and provided floral service for, one of the members of the gay couple.

Right off the bat, each associated party is accused of being bigots, homophobes, etc. They are accused of discrimination. Upon reviewing these 3 articles, 2 being relatively neutral, and 1 siding with the gay couple, can you honestly say these issues involve discrimination?


http://aclu-co.org...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.seattletimes.com...

From a prior conversation with SkepticAlone:

Roderick Spode: I think we're seeing maybe the first (major) signs of religious freedom coming into question. As it stands, where I would lack freedom today would be if I were to open a business that dealt in weddings.


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?


SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

And what exactly does religious freedom entitle one to do or not do under its name ?

Can we deny blacks service under religious freedom ?

Can we deny inter racial marriage under religious freedom ?

Can we kill non believers under religious freedom ?

If your answer to all those questions is no, no and no stop going after the gays on religious freedom grounds.

So religious freedom...............it's a very selective thing, eh ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 8:51:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 8:44:20 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/8/2015 8:38:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 8:32:01 PM, dee-em wrote:
Roderick is riding his hobby horse again. Giddy-up!

What's his hobby horse? I scarcely read his posts and dont know.

The subject of the OP. How Christians who refuse to provide services to gay couples for a wedding are being fined for discrimination. This is at least the third time he has raised this same issue. He's a bit like Ben Shapiro - no argument ever persuades him, no answer ever satisfies him. He's a dog with a bone and he's not letting go.

Well, I'm from Mississippi, and that's the norm here, although they (the gays) don't bother me a bit. I've never refused to treat an animal that belonged to a gay "couple" (or whatever). In fact, I usually talk to them a long time b/c they are usually hilarious. I do question, however, the ... ummm ... expediency of allowing gay marriage. They tend to sorta move around a lot.

As far as these folks "refusing service", I think it's more of a publicity stunt.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 9:01:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 8:45:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There have been 3 major incidences involving the refusal to service a gay-wedding that have gained notoriety. Whenever a State religious freedom bill is introduced, generally these 3 incidences are a reference point. What is notable about these 3 incidences, involving a bakery in Colorado, a wedding photography business in New Mexico, and a floral business in Washington, is that they've each made it clear that their refusal is strictly based on servicing a same-sex wedding. Not refusal to service gay people in any other context. In fact, the owner of the floral company was friends with, and provided floral service for, one of the members of the gay couple.

Right off the bat, each associated party is accused of being bigots, homophobes, etc. They are accused of discrimination. Upon reviewing these 3 articles, 2 being relatively neutral, and 1 siding with the gay couple, can you honestly say these issues involve discrimination?


http://aclu-co.org...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.seattletimes.com...

From a prior conversation with SkepticAlone:

Roderick Spode: I think we're seeing maybe the first (major) signs of religious freedom coming into question. As it stands, where I would lack freedom today would be if I were to open a business that dealt in weddings.


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?


SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

And what exactly does religious freedom entitle one to do or not do under its name ?

Can we deny blacks service under religious freedom ?

Can we deny inter racial marriage under religious freedom ?

Can we kill non believers under religious freedom ?

If your answer to all those questions is no, no and no stop going after the gays on religious freedom grounds.

So religious freedom...............it's a very selective thing, eh ?

Not really, because none of the above are "religious beliefs" in the first place. Some of them might be states' rights issues, but they are hardly "religious beliefs."

I'm surprised someone hasn't come up with "The Church of Mild-Altering Substances". On second thought, celestialtorah has come close to attempting that, since his THC levels never drop below overdose levels.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 9:06:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 9:01:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 8:45:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There have been 3 major incidences involving the refusal to service a gay-wedding that have gained notoriety. Whenever a State religious freedom bill is introduced, generally these 3 incidences are a reference point. What is notable about these 3 incidences, involving a bakery in Colorado, a wedding photography business in New Mexico, and a floral business in Washington, is that they've each made it clear that their refusal is strictly based on servicing a same-sex wedding. Not refusal to service gay people in any other context. In fact, the owner of the floral company was friends with, and provided floral service for, one of the members of the gay couple.

Right off the bat, each associated party is accused of being bigots, homophobes, etc. They are accused of discrimination. Upon reviewing these 3 articles, 2 being relatively neutral, and 1 siding with the gay couple, can you honestly say these issues involve discrimination?


http://aclu-co.org...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.seattletimes.com...

From a prior conversation with SkepticAlone:

Roderick Spode: I think we're seeing maybe the first (major) signs of religious freedom coming into question. As it stands, where I would lack freedom today would be if I were to open a business that dealt in weddings.


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?


SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

And what exactly does religious freedom entitle one to do or not do under its name ?

Can we deny blacks service under religious freedom ?

Can we deny inter racial marriage under religious freedom ?

Can we kill non believers under religious freedom ?

If your answer to all those questions is no, no and no stop going after the gays on religious freedom grounds.

So religious freedom...............it's a very selective thing, eh ?

Not really, because none of the above are "religious beliefs" in the first place. Some of them might be states' rights issues, but they are hardly "religious beliefs."

What determines if something really is a religious belief ? are you just selecting at your own pleasure what counts as a religious belief or not.

In history there are people that have claim that God exists and that God hates interracial marriage.

You know kinda like how God hates gays.

So now what ?


I'm surprised someone hasn't come up with "The Church of Mild-Altering Substances". On second thought, celestialtorah has come close to attempting that, since his THC levels never drop below overdose levels.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Nicoszon_the_Great
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 9:07:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There have been 3 major incidences involving the refusal to service a gay-wedding that have gained notoriety. Whenever a State religious freedom bill is introduced, generally these 3 incidences are a reference point. What is notable about these 3 incidences, involving a bakery in Colorado, a wedding photography business in New Mexico, and a floral business in Washington, is that they've each made it clear that their refusal is strictly based on servicing a same-sex wedding. Not refusal to service gay people in any other context. In fact, the owner of the floral company was friends with, and provided floral service for, one of the members of the gay couple.

Right off the bat, each associated party is accused of being bigots, homophobes, etc. They are accused of discrimination. Upon reviewing these 3 articles, 2 being relatively neutral, and 1 siding with the gay couple, can you honestly say these issues involve discrimination?


http://aclu-co.org...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.seattletimes.com...

From a prior conversation with SkepticAlone:

Roderick Spode: I think we're seeing maybe the first (major) signs of religious freedom coming into question. As it stands, where I would lack freedom today would be if I were to open a business that dealt in weddings.


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?


SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

No, the dominant religious affilliation is just being contested by others.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 9:15:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 9:01:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 8:45:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There have been 3 major incidences involving the refusal to service a gay-wedding that have gained notoriety. Whenever a State religious freedom bill is introduced, generally these 3 incidences are a reference point. What is notable about these 3 incidences, involving a bakery in Colorado, a wedding photography business in New Mexico, and a floral business in Washington, is that they've each made it clear that their refusal is strictly based on servicing a same-sex wedding. Not refusal to service gay people in any other context. In fact, the owner of the floral company was friends with, and provided floral service for, one of the members of the gay couple.

Right off the bat, each associated party is accused of being bigots, homophobes, etc. They are accused of discrimination. Upon reviewing these 3 articles, 2 being relatively neutral, and 1 siding with the gay couple, can you honestly say these issues involve discrimination?


http://aclu-co.org...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.seattletimes.com...

From a prior conversation with SkepticAlone:

Roderick Spode: I think we're seeing maybe the first (major) signs of religious freedom coming into question. As it stands, where I would lack freedom today would be if I were to open a business that dealt in weddings.


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?


SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

And what exactly does religious freedom entitle one to do or not do under its name ?

Can we deny blacks service under religious freedom ?

Can we deny inter racial marriage under religious freedom ?

Can we kill non believers under religious freedom ?

If your answer to all those questions is no, no and no stop going after the gays on religious freedom grounds.

So religious freedom...............it's a very selective thing, eh ?

Not really, because none of the above are "religious beliefs" in the first place. Some of them might be states' rights issues, but they are hardly "religious beliefs."

I'm surprised someone hasn't come up with "The Church of Mild-Altering Substances". On second thought, celestialtorah has come close to attempting that, since his THC levels never drop below overdose levels.

http://weknowmemes.com...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 9:16:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 9:06:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:01:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 8:45:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There have been 3 major incidences involving the refusal to service a gay-wedding that have gained notoriety. Whenever a State religious freedom bill is introduced, generally these 3 incidences are a reference point. What is notable about these 3 incidences, involving a bakery in Colorado, a wedding photography business in New Mexico, and a floral business in Washington, is that they've each made it clear that their refusal is strictly based on servicing a same-sex wedding. Not refusal to service gay people in any other context. In fact, the owner of the floral company was friends with, and provided floral service for, one of the members of the gay couple.

Right off the bat, each associated party is accused of being bigots, homophobes, etc. They are accused of discrimination. Upon reviewing these 3 articles, 2 being relatively neutral, and 1 siding with the gay couple, can you honestly say these issues involve discrimination?


http://aclu-co.org...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.seattletimes.com...

From a prior conversation with SkepticAlone:

Roderick Spode: I think we're seeing maybe the first (major) signs of religious freedom coming into question. As it stands, where I would lack freedom today would be if I were to open a business that dealt in weddings.


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?


SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

And what exactly does religious freedom entitle one to do or not do under its name ?

Can we deny blacks service under religious freedom ?

Can we deny inter racial marriage under religious freedom ?

Can we kill non believers under religious freedom ?

If your answer to all those questions is no, no and no stop going after the gays on religious freedom grounds.

So religious freedom...............it's a very selective thing, eh ?

Not really, because none of the above are "religious beliefs" in the first place. Some of them might be states' rights issues, but they are hardly "religious beliefs."

What determines if something really is a religious belief ? are you just selecting at your own pleasure what counts as a religious belief or not.

In history there are people that have claim that God exists and that God hates interracial marriage.

I've never heard anyone claim that God hates interracial marriage, and I've known (or know) probably thousands of folks who oppose it.

You know kinda like how God hates gays.

The only folks I've known to say that are those nutcases at Westboro Baptist.

So now what ?

The "now what" would be distinguishing between legitimate religious beliefs as opposed to trying to force my little opinions by calling them religious beliefs.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 9:17:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 9:15:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:01:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 8:45:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There have been 3 major incidences involving the refusal to service a gay-wedding that have gained notoriety. Whenever a State religious freedom bill is introduced, generally these 3 incidences are a reference point. What is notable about these 3 incidences, involving a bakery in Colorado, a wedding photography business in New Mexico, and a floral business in Washington, is that they've each made it clear that their refusal is strictly based on servicing a same-sex wedding. Not refusal to service gay people in any other context. In fact, the owner of the floral company was friends with, and provided floral service for, one of the members of the gay couple.

Right off the bat, each associated party is accused of being bigots, homophobes, etc. They are accused of discrimination. Upon reviewing these 3 articles, 2 being relatively neutral, and 1 siding with the gay couple, can you honestly say these issues involve discrimination?


http://aclu-co.org...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.seattletimes.com...

From a prior conversation with SkepticAlone:

Roderick Spode: I think we're seeing maybe the first (major) signs of religious freedom coming into question. As it stands, where I would lack freedom today would be if I were to open a business that dealt in weddings.


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?


SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

And what exactly does religious freedom entitle one to do or not do under its name ?

Can we deny blacks service under religious freedom ?

Can we deny inter racial marriage under religious freedom ?

Can we kill non believers under religious freedom ?

If your answer to all those questions is no, no and no stop going after the gays on religious freedom grounds.

So religious freedom...............it's a very selective thing, eh ?

Not really, because none of the above are "religious beliefs" in the first place. Some of them might be states' rights issues, but they are hardly "religious beliefs."

I'm surprised someone hasn't come up with "The Church of Mild-Altering Substances". On second thought, celestialtorah has come close to attempting that, since his THC levels never drop below overdose levels.

http://weknowmemes.com...

Looks like celestialtorah and his Indian buddies have moved to Colorado.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 9:25:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 9:16:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:06:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:01:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 8:45:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There have been 3 major incidences involving the refusal to service a gay-wedding that have gained notoriety. Whenever a State religious freedom bill is introduced, generally these 3 incidences are a reference point. What is notable about these 3 incidences, involving a bakery in Colorado, a wedding photography business in New Mexico, and a floral business in Washington, is that they've each made it clear that their refusal is strictly based on servicing a same-sex wedding. Not refusal to service gay people in any other context. In fact, the owner of the floral company was friends with, and provided floral service for, one of the members of the gay couple.

Right off the bat, each associated party is accused of being bigots, homophobes, etc. They are accused of discrimination. Upon reviewing these 3 articles, 2 being relatively neutral, and 1 siding with the gay couple, can you honestly say these issues involve discrimination?


http://aclu-co.org...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.seattletimes.com...

From a prior conversation with SkepticAlone:

Roderick Spode: I think we're seeing maybe the first (major) signs of religious freedom coming into question. As it stands, where I would lack freedom today would be if I were to open a business that dealt in weddings.


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?


SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

And what exactly does religious freedom entitle one to do or not do under its name ?

Can we deny blacks service under religious freedom ?

Can we deny inter racial marriage under religious freedom ?

Can we kill non believers under religious freedom ?

If your answer to all those questions is no, no and no stop going after the gays on religious freedom grounds.

So religious freedom...............it's a very selective thing, eh ?

Not really, because none of the above are "religious beliefs" in the first place. Some of them might be states' rights issues, but they are hardly "religious beliefs."

What determines if something really is a religious belief ? are you just selecting at your own pleasure what counts as a religious belief or not.

In history there are people that have claim that God exists and that God hates interracial marriage.

I've never heard anyone claim that God hates interracial marriage, and I've known (or know) probably thousands of folks who oppose it.

I think you need to read a little bit more history and how various religous claims were made in support of various racist acts and laws.


You know kinda like how God hates gays.

The only folks I've known to say that are those nutcases at Westboro Baptist.

So now what ?

The "now what" would be distinguishing between legitimate religious beliefs as opposed to trying to force my little opinions by calling them religious beliefs.

ONce again all I see from you is your just making up at your own pleasure what counts as a legitimate religious belief and thus is afforded religious protection.

THis reeks of religious special pleading, my religious beliefs get special protection the other guys do not cause they re not "legitimate".

I demand to know how you are determining what counts as a legitimate religious belief and what does not.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,067
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 9:36:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 9:06:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:01:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 8:45:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There have been 3 major incidences involving the refusal to service a gay-wedding that have gained notoriety. Whenever a State religious freedom bill is introduced, generally these 3 incidences are a reference point. What is notable about these 3 incidences, involving a bakery in Colorado, a wedding photography business in New Mexico, and a floral business in Washington, is that they've each made it clear that their refusal is strictly based on servicing a same-sex wedding. Not refusal to service gay people in any other context. In fact, the owner of the floral company was friends with, and provided floral service for, one of the members of the gay couple.

Right off the bat, each associated party is accused of being bigots, homophobes, etc. They are accused of discrimination. Upon reviewing these 3 articles, 2 being relatively neutral, and 1 siding with the gay couple, can you honestly say these issues involve discrimination?


http://aclu-co.org...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.seattletimes.com...

From a prior conversation with SkepticAlone:

Roderick Spode: I think we're seeing maybe the first (major) signs of religious freedom coming into question. As it stands, where I would lack freedom today would be if I were to open a business that dealt in weddings.


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?


SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

And what exactly does religious freedom entitle one to do or not do under its name ?

Can we deny blacks service under religious freedom ?

Can we deny inter racial marriage under religious freedom ?

Can we kill non believers under religious freedom ?

If your answer to all those questions is no, no and no stop going after the gays on religious freedom grounds.

So religious freedom...............it's a very selective thing, eh ?

Not really, because none of the above are "religious beliefs" in the first place. Some of them might be states' rights issues, but they are hardly "religious beliefs."

What determines if something really is a religious belief ? are you just selecting at your own pleasure what counts as a religious belief or not.

In history there are people that have claim that God exists and that God hates interracial marriage.

You know kinda like how God hates gays.

So now what ?


I'm surprised someone hasn't come up with "The Church of Mild-Altering Substances". On second thought, celestialtorah has come close to attempting that, since his THC levels never drop below overdose levels.

Anti-Miscegenation interpretations of the Bible are a pretty big "interpretational leap" of scripture. There is no "A black person shalt not lie with a black person" Biblical command. Even if you interpret certain verses a certain way there is no obvious Biblical stance against Miscegenation. On the other hand, it's reasonable to assume that the Bible is opposed to homosexual activity based on the verses. Even if you can make the case that this is the incorrect interpretation of scripture, the wording of the verses provides sufficient reason to interpret it according to the anti-sodomy context.
Your argument relies upon one assumption, though: that no one should have the right to refuse to perform interracial marriage services on religious grounds. Though there is certainly potential for abuse, and it likely has been abused in the past, those who genuinely believe this should be allowed to refuse on these grounds, in my opinion.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 9:37:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 9:25:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:16:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:06:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:01:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 8:45:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There have been 3 major incidences involving the refusal to service a gay-wedding that have gained notoriety. Whenever a State religious freedom bill is introduced, generally these 3 incidences are a reference point. What is notable about these 3 incidences, involving a bakery in Colorado, a wedding photography business in New Mexico, and a floral business in Washington, is that they've each made it clear that their refusal is strictly based on servicing a same-sex wedding. Not refusal to service gay people in any other context. In fact, the owner of the floral company was friends with, and provided floral service for, one of the members of the gay couple.

Right off the bat, each associated party is accused of being bigots, homophobes, etc. They are accused of discrimination. Upon reviewing these 3 articles, 2 being relatively neutral, and 1 siding with the gay couple, can you honestly say these issues involve discrimination?


http://aclu-co.org...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.seattletimes.com...

From a prior conversation with SkepticAlone:

Roderick Spode: I think we're seeing maybe the first (major) signs of religious freedom coming into question. As it stands, where I would lack freedom today would be if I were to open a business that dealt in weddings.


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?


SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

And what exactly does religious freedom entitle one to do or not do under its name ?

Can we deny blacks service under religious freedom ?

Can we deny inter racial marriage under religious freedom ?

Can we kill non believers under religious freedom ?

If your answer to all those questions is no, no and no stop going after the gays on religious freedom grounds.

So religious freedom...............it's a very selective thing, eh ?

Not really, because none of the above are "religious beliefs" in the first place. Some of them might be states' rights issues, but they are hardly "religious beliefs."

What determines if something really is a religious belief ? are you just selecting at your own pleasure what counts as a religious belief or not.

In history there are people that have claim that God exists and that God hates interracial marriage.

I've never heard anyone claim that God hates interracial marriage, and I've known (or know) probably thousands of folks who oppose it.

I think you need to read a little bit more history and how various religous claims were made in support of various racist acts and laws.

"Various racist acts and laws" are a little different than "interracial marriage." Methinks you just tried to broaden the playing field.


You know kinda like how God hates gays.

The only folks I've known to say that are those nutcases at Westboro Baptist.

So now what ?

The "now what" would be distinguishing between legitimate religious beliefs as opposed to trying to force my little opinions by calling them religious beliefs.

ONce again all I see from you is your just making up at your own pleasure what counts as a legitimate religious belief and thus is afforded religious protection.

THis reeks of religious special pleading, my religious beliefs get special protection the other guys do not cause they re not "legitimate".

I demand to know how you are determining what counts as a legitimate religious belief and what does not.

Legitimate = believed and practiced by a sizable number of people in a specific locale. For instance, letting cattle roam in the streets would be banned as a public nuisance here in Mississippi. The opposite is true in Sri Lanka. Therefore, it would probably be best for me to avoid going to Sri Lanka with a 30-06. Land's sakes, I can't go over there and make a fool of myself by killing cows. It's offensive to them.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 9:50:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 9:37:26 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:25:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:16:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:06:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:01:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 8:45:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There have been 3 major incidences involving the refusal to service a gay-wedding that have gained notoriety. Whenever a State religious freedom bill is introduced, generally these 3 incidences are a reference point. What is notable about these 3 incidences, involving a bakery in Colorado, a wedding photography business in New Mexico, and a floral business in Washington, is that they've each made it clear that their refusal is strictly based on servicing a same-sex wedding. Not refusal to service gay people in any other context. In fact, the owner of the floral company was friends with, and provided floral service for, one of the members of the gay couple.

Right off the bat, each associated party is accused of being bigots, homophobes, etc. They are accused of discrimination. Upon reviewing these 3 articles, 2 being relatively neutral, and 1 siding with the gay couple, can you honestly say these issues involve discrimination?


http://aclu-co.org...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.seattletimes.com...

From a prior conversation with SkepticAlone:

Roderick Spode: I think we're seeing maybe the first (major) signs of religious freedom coming into question. As it stands, where I would lack freedom today would be if I were to open a business that dealt in weddings.


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?


SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

And what exactly does religious freedom entitle one to do or not do under its name ?

Can we deny blacks service under religious freedom ?

Can we deny inter racial marriage under religious freedom ?

Can we kill non believers under religious freedom ?

If your answer to all those questions is no, no and no stop going after the gays on religious freedom grounds.

So religious freedom...............it's a very selective thing, eh ?

Not really, because none of the above are "religious beliefs" in the first place. Some of them might be states' rights issues, but they are hardly "religious beliefs."

What determines if something really is a religious belief ? are you just selecting at your own pleasure what counts as a religious belief or not.

In history there are people that have claim that God exists and that God hates interracial marriage.

I've never heard anyone claim that God hates interracial marriage, and I've known (or know) probably thousands of folks who oppose it.

I think you need to read a little bit more history and how various religous claims were made in support of various racist acts and laws.

"Various racist acts and laws" are a little different than "interracial marriage." Methinks you just tried to broaden the playing field.

It has being claimed that interracial marriage is against the will of God. Is that specific enough for ya ?



You know kinda like how God hates gays.

The only folks I've known to say that are those nutcases at Westboro Baptist.

So now what ?

The "now what" would be distinguishing between legitimate religious beliefs as opposed to trying to force my little opinions by calling them religious beliefs.

ONce again all I see from you is your just making up at your own pleasure what counts as a legitimate religious belief and thus is afforded religious protection.

THis reeks of religious special pleading, my religious beliefs get special protection the other guys do not cause they re not "legitimate".

I demand to know how you are determining what counts as a legitimate religious belief and what does not.

Legitimate = believed and practiced by a sizable number of people in a specific locale. For instance, letting cattle roam in the streets would be banned as a public nuisance here in Mississippi. The opposite is true in Sri Lanka. Therefore, it would probably be best for me to avoid going to Sri Lanka with a 30-06. Land's sakes, I can't go over there and make a fool of myself by killing cows. It's offensive to them.

Your just looking for excuses and what is amazing is that you set up a trap that could be used against you and others.

What do you say the various times and places where racism was believed and practiced ? they met your criteria.........

1) It is believed and practiced
2) Sizable number

Cmon actually start thinking. Just think before you offer some line of reasoning how else could this reasoning be used eh ?

So nice try but your criteria sucks and you don't really believe it anyway, your just looked for any excuse to justify anti gay bias.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 10:16:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 9:50:52 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:37:26 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:25:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:16:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:06:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:01:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 8:45:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There have been 3 major incidences involving the refusal to service a gay-wedding that have gained notoriety. Whenever a State religious freedom bill is introduced, generally these 3 incidences are a reference point. What is notable about these 3 incidences, involving a bakery in Colorado, a wedding photography business in New Mexico, and a floral business in Washington, is that they've each made it clear that their refusal is strictly based on servicing a same-sex wedding. Not refusal to service gay people in any other context. In fact, the owner of the floral company was friends with, and provided floral service for, one of the members of the gay couple.

Right off the bat, each associated party is accused of being bigots, homophobes, etc. They are accused of discrimination. Upon reviewing these 3 articles, 2 being relatively neutral, and 1 siding with the gay couple, can you honestly say these issues involve discrimination?


http://aclu-co.org...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.seattletimes.com...

From a prior conversation with SkepticAlone:

Roderick Spode: I think we're seeing maybe the first (major) signs of religious freedom coming into question. As it stands, where I would lack freedom today would be if I were to open a business that dealt in weddings.


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?


SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

And what exactly does religious freedom entitle one to do or not do under its name ?

Can we deny blacks service under religious freedom ?

Can we deny inter racial marriage under religious freedom ?

Can we kill non believers under religious freedom ?

If your answer to all those questions is no, no and no stop going after the gays on religious freedom grounds.

So religious freedom...............it's a very selective thing, eh ?

Not really, because none of the above are "religious beliefs" in the first place. Some of them might be states' rights issues, but they are hardly "religious beliefs."

What determines if something really is a religious belief ? are you just selecting at your own pleasure what counts as a religious belief or not.

In history there are people that have claim that God exists and that God hates interracial marriage.

I've never heard anyone claim that God hates interracial marriage, and I've known (or know) probably thousands of folks who oppose it.

I think you need to read a little bit more history and how various religous claims were made in support of various racist acts and laws.

"Various racist acts and laws" are a little different than "interracial marriage." Methinks you just tried to broaden the playing field.

It has being claimed that interracial marriage is against the will of God. Is that specific enough for ya ?

By whom? I've lived right here in Mississippi all of my life, and I've yet to hear a religious group claim that it is a sin.



You know kinda like how God hates gays.

The only folks I've known to say that are those nutcases at Westboro Baptist.

So now what ?

The "now what" would be distinguishing between legitimate religious beliefs as opposed to trying to force my little opinions by calling them religious beliefs.

ONce again all I see from you is your just making up at your own pleasure what counts as a legitimate religious belief and thus is afforded religious protection.

THis reeks of religious special pleading, my religious beliefs get special protection the other guys do not cause they re not "legitimate".

I demand to know how you are determining what counts as a legitimate religious belief and what does not.

Legitimate = believed and practiced by a sizable number of people in a specific locale. For instance, letting cattle roam in the streets would be banned as a public nuisance here in Mississippi. The opposite is true in Sri Lanka. Therefore, it would probably be best for me to avoid going to Sri Lanka with a 30-06. Land's sakes, I can't go over there and make a fool of myself by killing cows. It's offensive to them.

Your just looking for excuses and what is amazing is that you set up a trap that could be used against you and others.

What do you say the various times and places where racism was believed and practiced ? they met your criteria.........

1) It is believed and practiced
2) Sizable number

Why, it STILL IS ...

Heck, 95% of the people here (if not 100%) are racist in some form or another. So what? I don't care. I never hear anyone claiming they are racist based on religious convictions.

Cmon actually start thinking. Just think before you offer some line of reasoning how else could this reasoning be used eh ?

So nice try but your criteria sucks and you don't really believe it anyway, your just looked for any excuse to justify anti gay bias.

Don't believe what?

I could hardly care less if two homosexuals get "married" or not, really. I honestly think if two of them came into my office and said, "Hey, we just got married", I'd laugh at them and ask, "Which one of you threw the garter belt?" It's ridiculous. Most of the ones I know wouldn't last six months at the marriage game, and some wouldn't last six weeks.

What you are advocating is: forcing people to participate in activities which they believe to be religiously wrong. That's the bottom line. While it doesn't particularly affect me (because I simply don't care), I can see how folks would object to it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 10:35:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 10:16:42 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:50:52 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:37:26 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:25:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:16:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:06:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:01:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 8:45:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There have been 3 major incidences involving the refusal to service a gay-wedding that have gained notoriety. Whenever a State religious freedom bill is introduced, generally these 3 incidences are a reference point. What is notable about these 3 incidences, involving a bakery in Colorado, a wedding photography business in New Mexico, and a floral business in Washington, is that they've each made it clear that their refusal is strictly based on servicing a same-sex wedding. Not refusal to service gay people in any other context. In fact, the owner of the floral company was friends with, and provided floral service for, one of the members of the gay couple.

Right off the bat, each associated party is accused of being bigots, homophobes, etc. They are accused of discrimination. Upon reviewing these 3 articles, 2 being relatively neutral, and 1 siding with the gay couple, can you honestly say these issues involve discrimination?


http://aclu-co.org...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.seattletimes.com...

From a prior conversation with SkepticAlone:

Roderick Spode: I think we're seeing maybe the first (major) signs of religious freedom coming into question. As it stands, where I would lack freedom today would be if I were to open a business that dealt in weddings.


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?


SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

And what exactly does religious freedom entitle one to do or not do under its name ?

Can we deny blacks service under religious freedom ?

Can we deny inter racial marriage under religious freedom ?

Can we kill non believers under religious freedom ?

If your answer to all those questions is no, no and no stop going after the gays on religious freedom grounds.

So religious freedom...............it's a very selective thing, eh ?

Not really, because none of the above are "religious beliefs" in the first place. Some of them might be states' rights issues, but they are hardly "religious beliefs."

What determines if something really is a religious belief ? are you just selecting at your own pleasure what counts as a religious belief or not.

In history there are people that have claim that God exists and that God hates interracial marriage.

I've never heard anyone claim that God hates interracial marriage, and I've known (or know) probably thousands of folks who oppose it.

I think you need to read a little bit more history and how various religous claims were made in support of various racist acts and laws.

"Various racist acts and laws" are a little different than "interracial marriage." Methinks you just tried to broaden the playing field.

It has being claimed that interracial marriage is against the will of God. Is that specific enough for ya ?


By whom? I've lived right here in Mississippi all of my life, and I've yet to hear a religious group claim that it is a sin.




You know kinda like how God hates gays.

The only folks I've known to say that are those nutcases at Westboro Baptist.

So now what ?

The "now what" would be distinguishing between legitimate religious beliefs as opposed to trying to force my little opinions by calling them religious beliefs.

ONce again all I see from you is your just making up at your own pleasure what counts as a legitimate religious belief and thus is afforded religious protection.

THis reeks of religious special pleading, my religious beliefs get special protection the other guys do not cause they re not "legitimate".

I demand to know how you are determining what counts as a legitimate religious belief and what does not.

Legitimate = believed and practiced by a sizable number of people in a specific locale. For instance, letting cattle roam in the streets would be banned as a public nuisance here in Mississippi. The opposite is true in Sri Lanka. Therefore, it would probably be best for me to avoid going to Sri Lanka with a 30-06. Land's sakes, I can't go over there and make a fool of myself by killing cows. It's offensive to them.

Your just looking for excuses and what is amazing is that you set up a trap that could be used against you and others.

What do you say the various times and places where racism was believed and practiced ? they met your criteria.........

1) It is believed and practiced
2) Sizable number

Why, it STILL IS ...

Heck, 95% of the people here (if not 100%) are racist in some form or another. So what? I don't care. I never hear anyone claiming they are racist based on religious convictions.

Then read more history.

Racism and racist policy was more common in the USA in the past. And low and behold I know you might have trouble believing this but some people used religious belief to justify it.

Gods will, against nature, well in the bible it says.................

So congrats your criteria grants racist acts protected by religious freedom.

I think your criteria is a joke, you don't really believe it should be used anyway, it just something you came up with to justify discrimination against gays.

SO here is my proposal. Racism does not get exempted on religious freedom grounds nor should discrimination against gays.

THink this has some merit to it ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 10:44:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 10:35:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 10:16:42 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:50:52 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:37:26 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:25:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:16:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:06:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:01:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 8:45:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?

SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

And what exactly does religious freedom entitle one to do or not do under its name ?

Can we deny blacks service under religious freedom ?

Can we deny inter racial marriage under religious freedom ?

Can we kill non believers under religious freedom ?

If your answer to all those questions is no, no and no stop going after the gays on religious freedom grounds.

So religious freedom...............it's a very selective thing, eh ?

Not really, because none of the above are "religious beliefs" in the first place. Some of them might be states' rights issues, but they are hardly "religious beliefs."

What determines if something really is a religious belief ? are you just selecting at your own pleasure what counts as a religious belief or not.

In history there are people that have claim that God exists and that God hates interracial marriage.

I've never heard anyone claim that God hates interracial marriage, and I've known (or know) probably thousands of folks who oppose it.

I think you need to read a little bit more history and how various religous claims were made in support of various racist acts and laws.

"Various racist acts and laws" are a little different than "interracial marriage." Methinks you just tried to broaden the playing field.

It has being claimed that interracial marriage is against the will of God. Is that specific enough for ya ?


By whom? I've lived right here in Mississippi all of my life, and I've yet to hear a religious group claim that it is a sin.





You know kinda like how God hates gays.

The only folks I've known to say that are those nutcases at Westboro Baptist.

So now what ?

The "now what" would be distinguishing between legitimate religious beliefs as opposed to trying to force my little opinions by calling them religious beliefs.

ONce again all I see from you is your just making up at your own pleasure what counts as a legitimate religious belief and thus is afforded religious protection.

THis reeks of religious special pleading, my religious beliefs get special protection the other guys do not cause they re not "legitimate".

I demand to know how you are determining what counts as a legitimate religious belief and what does not.

Legitimate = believed and practiced by a sizable number of people in a specific locale. For instance, letting cattle roam in the streets would be banned as a public nuisance here in Mississippi. The opposite is true in Sri Lanka. Therefore, it would probably be best for me to avoid going to Sri Lanka with a 30-06. Land's sakes, I can't go over there and make a fool of myself by killing cows. It's offensive to them.

Your just looking for excuses and what is amazing is that you set up a trap that could be used against you and others.

What do you say the various times and places where racism was believed and practiced ? they met your criteria.........

1) It is believed and practiced
2) Sizable number

Why, it STILL IS ...

Heck, 95% of the people here (if not 100%) are racist in some form or another. So what? I don't care. I never hear anyone claiming they are racist based on religious convictions.

Then read more history.

Racism and racist policy was more common in the USA in the past. And low and behold I know you might have trouble believing this but some people used religious belief to justify it.

Gods will, against nature, well in the bible it says.................

So congrats your criteria grants racist acts protected by religious freedom.

I think your criteria is a joke, you don't really believe it should be used anyway, it just something you came up with to justify discrimination against gays.

SO here is my proposal. Racism does not get exempted on religious freedom grounds nor should discrimination against gays.

THink this has some merit to it ?

Certainly racism is not "exempted" on religious grounds. It never was. I do not recall a single court case in which the "racist act" (by your definition of the term) was defended upon religious grounds. You might point one out. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I've just never heard of it.

I stand by my statement: "What you are advocating is: forcing people to participate in activities which they believe to be religiously wrong. That's the bottom line. While it doesn't particularly affect me (because I simply don't care), I can see how folks would object to it."

The bolded portion up there is true.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 10:58:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 10:44:20 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 10:35:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 10:16:42 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:50:52 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:37:26 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:25:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:16:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:06:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:01:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 8:45:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?

SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

And what exactly does religious freedom entitle one to do or not do under its name ?

Can we deny blacks service under religious freedom ?

Can we deny inter racial marriage under religious freedom ?

Can we kill non believers under religious freedom ?

If your answer to all those questions is no, no and no stop going after the gays on religious freedom grounds.

So religious freedom...............it's a very selective thing, eh ?

Not really, because none of the above are "religious beliefs" in the first place. Some of them might be states' rights issues, but they are hardly "religious beliefs."

What determines if something really is a religious belief ? are you just selecting at your own pleasure what counts as a religious belief or not.

In history there are people that have claim that God exists and that God hates interracial marriage.

I've never heard anyone claim that God hates interracial marriage, and I've known (or know) probably thousands of folks who oppose it.

I think you need to read a little bit more history and how various religous claims were made in support of various racist acts and laws.

"Various racist acts and laws" are a little different than "interracial marriage." Methinks you just tried to broaden the playing field.

It has being claimed that interracial marriage is against the will of God. Is that specific enough for ya ?


By whom? I've lived right here in Mississippi all of my life, and I've yet to hear a religious group claim that it is a sin.





You know kinda like how God hates gays.

The only folks I've known to say that are those nutcases at Westboro Baptist.

So now what ?

The "now what" would be distinguishing between legitimate religious beliefs as opposed to trying to force my little opinions by calling them religious beliefs.

ONce again all I see from you is your just making up at your own pleasure what counts as a legitimate religious belief and thus is afforded religious protection.

THis reeks of religious special pleading, my religious beliefs get special protection the other guys do not cause they re not "legitimate".

I demand to know how you are determining what counts as a legitimate religious belief and what does not.

Legitimate = believed and practiced by a sizable number of people in a specific locale. For instance, letting cattle roam in the streets would be banned as a public nuisance here in Mississippi. The opposite is true in Sri Lanka. Therefore, it would probably be best for me to avoid going to Sri Lanka with a 30-06. Land's sakes, I can't go over there and make a fool of myself by killing cows. It's offensive to them.

Your just looking for excuses and what is amazing is that you set up a trap that could be used against you and others.

What do you say the various times and places where racism was believed and practiced ? they met your criteria.........

1) It is believed and practiced
2) Sizable number

Why, it STILL IS ...

Heck, 95% of the people here (if not 100%) are racist in some form or another. So what? I don't care. I never hear anyone claiming they are racist based on religious convictions.

Then read more history.

Racism and racist policy was more common in the USA in the past. And low and behold I know you might have trouble believing this but some people used religious belief to justify it.

Gods will, against nature, well in the bible it says.................

So congrats your criteria grants racist acts protected by religious freedom.

I think your criteria is a joke, you don't really believe it should be used anyway, it just something you came up with to justify discrimination against gays.

SO here is my proposal. Racism does not get exempted on religious freedom grounds nor should discrimination against gays.

THink this has some merit to it ?

Certainly racism is not "exempted" on religious grounds. It never was. I do not recall a single court case in which the "racist act" (by your definition of the term) was defended upon religious grounds. You might point one out. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I've just never heard of it.

You won't accept discrimination based on race being exempted on religious grounds

But you will allow discrimination based on being gay as being exempted on religious grounds.

So what other types of discrimination is allowed under the religious freedom ?

Against women ?
Against midgets ?
Against women who use birth control ?
Against white men ?
Unwed mothers ?


I stand by my statement: "What you are advocating is: forcing people to participate in activities which they believe to be religiously wrong. That's the bottom line. While it doesn't particularly affect me (because I simply don't care), I can see how folks would object to it."

And how is religiously wrong different from just wrong ? Is it just because if you can attach God to it it becomes religious wrong ?

Cause all you have to do is claim that God will is against X therefore X is wrong.

You can make ANYTHING religiously wrong with that.


The bolded portion up there is true.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 11:10:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 12:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There have been 3 major incidences involving the refusal to service a gay-wedding that have gained notoriety. Whenever a State religious freedom bill is introduced, generally these 3 incidences are a reference point. What is notable about these 3 incidences, involving a bakery in Colorado, a wedding photography business in New Mexico, and a floral business in Washington, is that they've each made it clear that their refusal is strictly based on servicing a same-sex wedding. Not refusal to service gay people in any other context. In fact, the owner of the floral company was friends with, and provided floral service for, one of the members of the gay couple.

Right off the bat, each associated party is accused of being bigots, homophobes, etc. They are accused of discrimination. Upon reviewing these 3 articles, 2 being relatively neutral, and 1 siding with the gay couple, can you honestly say these issues involve discrimination?


http://aclu-co.org...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.seattletimes.com...

From a prior conversation with SkepticAlone:

Roderick Spode: I think we're seeing maybe the first (major) signs of religious freedom coming into question. As it stands, where I would lack freedom today would be if I were to open a business that dealt in weddings.


SkepticAlone: What if I interpret the words of god to say I can shoot every fifth person who walks in my store? Is that Okay?


SkepticAlone either equates these instances where the business owners refuse to cater to a gay wedding to someone shooting their fifth customer, or suggests that if these couple are allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding it could result in those types of incidences.

If it's the first, well....you be the judge.

If it's the second, keep in mind, the question is not whether or not there is discrimination against gay people, or whether or not some people will abuse laws directed at protecting religious rights. This is not about retribution (Christians have been guilty of discrimination, therefore they're getting what they deserve. etc.).

Is religious freedom under fire in the U.S.?

I can see the argument on the photographer's side. There's no way to photograph a wedding without essentially participating in it. To use a related example, if I was a photographer and was asked to take photos at a bris, I would refuse. I have no doubt I'd be accused of anti-semitism.

For the florist and baker, though, they're just selling a product. They aren't being asked to participate. They aren't even being asked to express something they disagree with. Refusing to provide a product because of the nature of those who are going to use it is discrimination, plain and simple.

To answer the actual question, no, religious freedom is not under fire. These are civil matters. If your religion prevents you from doing business, it is not the fault of potential patrons or the law that you can't resolve the two.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 11:38:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Someone supply evidence of your god prohibiting the baking of a cake for any reason.
Game over.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 11:41:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

THink this has some merit to it ?

Certainly racism is not "exempted" on religious grounds. It never was. I do not recall a single court case in which the "racist act" (by your definition of the term) was defended upon religious grounds. You might point one out. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I've just never heard of it.

I stand by my statement: "What you are advocating is: forcing people to participate in activities which they believe to be religiously wrong. That's the bottom line. While it doesn't particularly affect me (because I simply don't care), I can see how folks would object to it."

The bolded portion up there is true.

So a Muslim shop owner may deny service to the Jewish community? May take over then fire Jews in a business arrangement? How about the staunch Christian Doc that would refuse to deliver a baby for a lesbian couple?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 12:06:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 11:41:52 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

THink this has some merit to it ?

Certainly racism is not "exempted" on religious grounds. It never was. I do not recall a single court case in which the "racist act" (by your definition of the term) was defended upon religious grounds. You might point one out. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I've just never heard of it.

I stand by my statement: "What you are advocating is: forcing people to participate in activities which they believe to be religiously wrong. That's the bottom line. While it doesn't particularly affect me (because I simply don't care), I can see how folks would object to it."

The bolded portion up there is true.

So a Muslim shop owner may deny service to the Jewish community?

On what grounds? That the Jew is demanding that he do something that is against teh Muslim religion?

May take over then fire Jews in a business arrangement?

It is not against the Muslim religion to employ Jews.

How about the staunch Christian Doc that would refuse to deliver a baby for a lesbian couple?

Delivering a baby violates no Christian teachings.

Here's one:

Suppose I decide to marry a Hispanic man. I could. Then I go to a florist and am told, "Sorry, nothing personal, but we simply do not agree with whites marrying Hispanics." Know what I'd do? Waltz right out the door and get someone else to do it. They'd never hear from me again. The last freakin thing I'd do is make a total fool of myself and haul them to court.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 12:13:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 12:06:14 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 11:41:52 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

THink this has some merit to it ?

Certainly racism is not "exempted" on religious grounds. It never was. I do not recall a single court case in which the "racist act" (by your definition of the term) was defended upon religious grounds. You might point one out. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I've just never heard of it.

I stand by my statement: "What you are advocating is: forcing people to participate in activities which they believe to be religiously wrong. That's the bottom line. While it doesn't particularly affect me (because I simply don't care), I can see how folks would object to it."

The bolded portion up there is true.

So a Muslim shop owner may deny service to the Jewish community?

On what grounds? That the Jew is demanding that he do something that is against teh Muslim religion?

No, of course not. The Muslim owner denies the right of the Jewish state to exist, that the person is a Zionist, etc etc (insert usual stereotype here).

May take over then fire Jews in a business arrangement?

It is not against the Muslim religion to employ Jews.
See previous, though through some rather selective interpretation (much like the touch stone florist and photographer dide), its not against the religion to bake cakes or take pictures of gays.

How about the staunch Christian Doc that would refuse to deliver a baby for a lesbian couple?

Delivering a baby violates no Christian teachings.

2 people same gender that lie with another as a man lie with a women, committed an abomination, said abomination made manifest through ungodly means... are you honestly going to state that a person can't make a religious claim that he/she disagrees with the arrangement?

Here's one:

Suppose I decide to marry a Hispanic man. I could. Then I go to a florist and am told, "Sorry, nothing personal, but we simply do not agree with whites marrying Hispanics." Know what I'd do? Waltz right out the door and get someone else to do it.

You are leaving the bounds of the examples, religion included.

They'd never hear from me again. The last freakin thing I'd do is make a total fool of myself and haul them to court.

You still aren't answering the core of the point: if I claim religious belief, what am I not allowed to do in ways of circumventing laws?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 12:24:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 12:13:18 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/9/2015 12:06:14 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 11:41:52 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

THink this has some merit to it ?

Certainly racism is not "exempted" on religious grounds. It never was. I do not recall a single court case in which the "racist act" (by your definition of the term) was defended upon religious grounds. You might point one out. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I've just never heard of it.

I stand by my statement: "What you are advocating is: forcing people to participate in activities which they believe to be religiously wrong. That's the bottom line. While it doesn't particularly affect me (because I simply don't care), I can see how folks would object to it."

The bolded portion up there is true.

So a Muslim shop owner may deny service to the Jewish community?

On what grounds? That the Jew is demanding that he do something that is against teh Muslim religion?

No, of course not. The Muslim owner denies the right of the Jewish state to exist, that the person is a Zionist, etc etc (insert usual stereotype here).

May take over then fire Jews in a business arrangement?

It is not against the Muslim religion to employ Jews.
See previous, though through some rather selective interpretation (much like the touch stone florist and photographer dide), its not against the religion to bake cakes or take pictures of gays.

How about the staunch Christian Doc that would refuse to deliver a baby for a lesbian couple?

Delivering a baby violates no Christian teachings.

2 people same gender that lie with another as a man lie with a women, committed an abomination, said abomination made manifest through ungodly means... are you honestly going to state that a person can't make a religious claim that he/she disagrees with the arrangement?

Here's one:

Suppose I decide to marry a Hispanic man. I could. Then I go to a florist and am told, "Sorry, nothing personal, but we simply do not agree with whites marrying Hispanics." Know what I'd do? Waltz right out the door and get someone else to do it.

You are leaving the bounds of the examples, religion included.

They'd never hear from me again. The last freakin thing I'd do is make a total fool of myself and haul them to court.

You still aren't answering the core of the point: if I claim religious belief, what am I not allowed to do in ways of circumventing laws?

You want an example? You are not allowed to murder someone, then claim your "religious belief" or "the voice of God" told you to kill them.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 12:30:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 12:24:18 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/9/2015 12:13:18 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/9/2015 12:06:14 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/8/2015 11:41:52 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

THink this has some merit to it ?

Certainly racism is not "exempted" on religious grounds. It never was. I do not recall a single court case in which the "racist act" (by your definition of the term) was defended upon religious grounds. You might point one out. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I've just never heard of it.

I stand by my statement: "What you are advocating is: forcing people to participate in activities which they believe to be religiously wrong. That's the bottom line. While it doesn't particularly affect me (because I simply don't care), I can see how folks would object to it."

The bolded portion up there is true.

So a Muslim shop owner may deny service to the Jewish community?

On what grounds? That the Jew is demanding that he do something that is against teh Muslim religion?

No, of course not. The Muslim owner denies the right of the Jewish state to exist, that the person is a Zionist, etc etc (insert usual stereotype here).

May take over then fire Jews in a business arrangement?

It is not against the Muslim religion to employ Jews.
See previous, though through some rather selective interpretation (much like the touch stone florist and photographer dide), its not against the religion to bake cakes or take pictures of gays.

How about the staunch Christian Doc that would refuse to deliver a baby for a lesbian couple?

Delivering a baby violates no Christian teachings.

2 people same gender that lie with another as a man lie with a women, committed an abomination, said abomination made manifest through ungodly means... are you honestly going to state that a person can't make a religious claim that he/she disagrees with the arrangement?

Here's one:

Suppose I decide to marry a Hispanic man. I could. Then I go to a florist and am told, "Sorry, nothing personal, but we simply do not agree with whites marrying Hispanics." Know what I'd do? Waltz right out the door and get someone else to do it.

You are leaving the bounds of the examples, religion included.

They'd never hear from me again. The last freakin thing I'd do is make a total fool of myself and haul them to court.

You still aren't answering the core of the point: if I claim religious belief, what am I not allowed to do in ways of circumventing laws?

You want an example? You are not allowed to murder someone, then claim your "religious belief" or "the voice of God" told you to kill them.

Okay. Perfect. So, can I claim employing, treating medically, supplying service to, etc however is in the purview of "forcing some one to participate" in something they are religiously opposed to?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...