RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service

RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 7:10:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic off to join the tibetans in nepal and get me some brothers.actually scratch that...NON brothers. i just skeeved myself. You go girl :D

Lucylastic -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 7:13:51 AM)
You do make me smile sometimes Ken:) I like that.

KenDckey -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 8:04:59 AM)
I am wondering, I do that a lot you know, if a gay couple wanted to get married in a catholic church by a priest, must the priest do so or should he go to jail for civil rights abuses?

altoonamaster -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 8:13:18 AM)
maybe religion rights arent enought but that flag says you can do as you want

CreativeDominant -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 8:27:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Or is it only YOUR religion that must be allowed even when it suppresses the rights of others and perhaps even THEIR religion? Butch Good question. We only hear these claims of religious exemption advanced to support overt discrimination, usually against queers. However if the principle of religious exemption is valid, then there's no reason why, for instance, some people can't commit bigamy. There are a number of well known religions that permit a man taking several wives (it's never the other way around - does any one know of a religion that permits a wife taking several husbands?) So would the people proposing religious exemptions also support Muslims, or other religions, being permitted to have several wives? Would they insist on the Catholic position of denying abortions to rape victims? Or is it only a case of "your religion" being permitted to suppress others' rights? Is it only a case of the rights of queers being suppressed? Because that it what it looks like. Just one problem with your post...the OP is about a MUSLIM refusing to provide a service because of his religious beliefs. How about you focus on that instead of going off on Christians again?

KenDckey -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 8:30:15 AM)
CD, does it make a difference if it is muslim, christian, budhist, athiest, etc?

CreativeDominant -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 8:58:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey CD, does it make a difference if it is muslim, christian, budhist, athiest, etc? Not in my mind...for something deeply felt by the store owner that does zero harm to his client. As has been discussed on other threads, the client can go elsewhere. That way, the religious person...Muslim in this case...does not have to violate his beliefs and the client gets a haircut from someone who has no problem touching a woman not of his/her family.

KenDckey -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 9:00:18 AM)
agreed. :D

Lucylastic -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 9:19:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Three year old news from the perpetually offended. No...if it was about the perpetually offended, it would: Be about a member of a group Said member of said group would be claiming damage (like 88 different symptoms) Said member's damage could only be fixed with money and/or forcing the offending party to close OR do things in the manner chosen by the offended party. She's talking about posters here, Sparky. Right on the button as usual MM:)

Lucylastic -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 9:20:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I am wondering, I do that a lot you know, if a gay couple wanted to get married in a catholic church by a priest, must the priest do so or should he go to jail for civil rights abuses? no... not only no, but never have and never will.

Lucylastic -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 9:21:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic off to join the tibetans in nepal and get me some brothers.actually scratch that...NON brothers. i just skeeved myself. Live it up, Lucy! [:D] heh Im sorry I missed this earlier... I intend to Johnny, But I promise not to send pics:)

KenDckey -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 9:27:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I am wondering, I do that a lot you know, if a gay couple wanted to get married in a catholic church by a priest, must the priest do so or should he go to jail for civil rights abuses? no... not only no, but never have and never will. some people consider the church (whatever religion) a buiness. just saying. I don't.

KenDckey -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 9:28:43 AM)
quote: I promise not to send pics damn it. LOL

kdsub -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 9:33:37 AM)
Ken the Catholic church and the ability to be married in one is not open to the general public... it is a different deal. Butch

Arturas -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 9:41:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub These types of threads have been coming and going here of late with the same groups saying the same things over and over. Who’s rights are righter. I think it is time to look at the problem from a different direction and ask a few basic questions… at least in the United States and other free Democracy’s. Who determines basic rights? Is it religion or government? I propose on a basic level it is our Constitution first… the rights spelled out were purposely written to stop religious oppression within a framework of freedom to practice your religion, or not practice any religion, as long as basic rights are guaranteed for all. Muslim barbers… Christian bakers…etc must decide to abide by the human rights guaranteed by the Constitution and law OR find a profession where they can follow their religion without suppressing the rights of others. I believe the Constitution quite plainly, and the courts agree, has determined that basic human rights for all are more important then individual rights of a particular religious belief… especially when individuals can follow those beliefs as long as they do not impinge the rights of others. Otherwise if you do not want to touch a woman’s hair or bake a cake for a gay wedding then find another profession open to the public where you can follow your beliefs without taking away the rights of others to follow their beliefs. Butch There is no constitutional right to get a haircut at a certain barber shop. That is a made-up right that is based on, someone else said it, this right is more important than that right. This right being the one that imposes the will of someone who does not own the business on the one who owns the business. We all know what is happening when this occurs. The one imposing their will is looking for acknowledgement of their lifestyle because they are very insecure in that area. What would be better for them would be to turn them around, open the door and boot them out into the street.

Arturas -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 9:45:33 AM)
...now if there was only one food source in the land and you are gay and need food then the single food business must sell you food since the Constitution does guarantee the pursuit of life. It does not guarantee life otherwise abortion would be illegal. It also does not guarantee a haircut. I cannot believe I am participating in this discussion.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 11:28:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic off to join the tibetans in nepal and get me some brothers.actually scratch that...NON brothers. i just skeeved myself. Live it up, Lucy! [:D] heh Im sorry I missed this earlier... That's okay...but I'll admit I was beginning to feel a little left out. [:(]

Lucylastic -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 11:37:40 AM)
[sm=imsorry.gif][sm=hippie.gif][sm=angel.gif]

RottenJohnny -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 11:41:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic [sm=imsorry.gif][sm=hippie.gif][sm=angel.gif] Awww...hehe...thanks. [:)]

GotSteel -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 2:31:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You cannot seem to tell the difference between something like medical care and a haircut. I have lived in very small towns. Never have I found one were someone couldn't get a haircut. Even in the 50's. What are you freaking out about now? Before you were freaking out that this hadn't happened, you even came up with this whole conspiracy theory about how anti-discrimination laws only applied to Christians. Well here's the cake you wanted, that should calm you down.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125