RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi?

RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (Full Version)

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

Message

ifmaz -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 9:53:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML @ifmaz quote: By eliminating these sorts of bills, does that not pave way for a gay-owned bakery to be forced to create a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church that says "death to all gays" or whatever their chosen slogan is? Would it not also 'force' Jewish bakeries to bake pro-Nazi cakes? Could the KKK force a black-owned business to create cakes depicting lynchings? Would a Muslim bakery be forced to make a cake made of bacon? Shamefully dissembling is what you are doing. The principle issue raised by these laws is religious conscience. There is nothing in our Constitution that guarantees religious conscience. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " The key word is "exercise." We're talkin about exercise here. When you convert religious conscience into exercise you are exercising discrimination, not religion. You simply cannot hide that by making up shit about religious conscience, which is not a constitutional issue. When you open a business you depend on the police to protect your property rights. You depend on the roads and sidewalks to bring customers to you. You depend on public utilities to maintain the town in which you seek to make a living. All of that is provided by the taxes everybody pays. LBGT folks work, own property, and pay taxes so you can run your business in an orderly civic environment. So, yes, since everybody supports your store you damn well have a duty to serve everybody. The Westboro Baptist Church members pay taxes. If the Westboro Baptist Church was to enter my hypothetical store would I not be able to refuse them as they disgust me, and could I not cite my religious convictions of everyone being equal when I did so? Or would I instead be forced to provide them services? Freedom includes the side-effect of "tolerating" things you don't necessarily agree with. Let the free market decide what it will tolerate; if enough people discover the views of companies and opt to not do business with them, those businesses will eventually fold. Instead, what you are demanding is government coercion.

Lucylastic -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 10:02:55 PM)
quote: It's seriously pathetic to try to swing it all around so that you now claim that it's such 'Christians' are being persecuted. Cloaking bigotry in "religion" doesnt make it any less bigoted. Oh and calling people out on their bigotry isnt persecution, its accountability...

ifmaz -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 10:16:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: By eliminating these sorts of bills, does that not pave way for a gay-owned bakery to be forced to create a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church that says "death to all gays" or whatever their chosen slogan is? Would it not also 'force' Jewish bakeries to bake pro-Nazi cakes? Could the KKK force a black-owned business to create cakes depicting lynchings? Would a Muslim bakery be forced to make a cake made of bacon? So many thorny questions . . . Could an internet-service provider refuse access to content that offends its religious sensibilities? Yes, because potential customers are free to find a different ISP. If the customer(s) posted on forums about their experiences and ranked the business low, other customers would more than likely take note and find different ISPs. The religious ISP would then have to make the difficult decision of having a positive cash-flow or follow its religious "sensibilities". For instance, my employer blocks access to certain websites. I can either deal with it, find a new job, or knowingly violate their security policy by making a ssh tunnel and using an off-site Squid proxy. EDIT: I stopped using Earthlink when I discovered its owner/founder was a Scientologist, for instance. quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Could a Quaker shopping center owner refuse to rent space to a gun merchant? Yes, because said merchant can rent elsewhere. If the merchant was to inform its customers about the Quaker shopping center owner, some customers would then boycott other stores in the shopping center. Those businesses would complain to the owner and eventually either things would change or the business owners would rent elsewhere. There is no reason for government to step in and use force. quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Can a Muslim cabbie refuse to carry passengers who are toting alcohol? (I believe that's a real-life example.) Does the Muslim cabbie own the company or are they employed by the company? Assuming the Muslim cabbie owns the company or is self-employed as a cabbie, yes; the passenger(s) can find another cab. They would undoubtedly write negative reviews of the cab company. If the Muslim cab driver is merely employed by the cab company then no, unless the employment contract has a policy against such things. Of course this would then prompt the question of whether or not the cab company is 'allowed' to terminate the Muslim cab driver's employment, to which I'd say yes because the driver is not fulfilling his employment contract. quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Could a restaurateur who believes that the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit refuse to serve dessert to an overweight lady? Yes, because said overweight lady can find desserts elsewhere, perhaps refusing to give that business her money in the future. quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Can a pharmacist refuse to sell condoms to unmarried customers? Again, is the pharmacist employed by a parent company or do they own the company? If they own the company then yes, because the unmarried customers can find condoms elsewhere. If the pharmacist works for a company and the company does not have any rules explicitly disallowing the sale, then no as that would violate the pharmacist's employment contract. quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Can a landlord refuse to rent to an unmarried couple? To a mixed-race couple? This is the only one that's remotely tricky and I don't have a "good" answer for it. Part of me wants to say yes, because the unmarried couple can rent elsewhere. The unmarried couple could, of course, claim to Just Be Friends or roommates or whatever. To deny based on race, however, is more complicated. quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice And this one is definitely rooted in reality: Can a school board with fundamentalist Christians in the majority demand science textbooks that omit evolution? Is the schoolboard for a public or private school? If public, no; if private, yes. The textbook maker would then make a decision on whether or not to alter their textbooks in order to sell to the schools.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 10:30:49 PM)
For those who support such Bills, do think that establishments that chose to exercise their religious beliefs should be required to openly post on the door or window stating that the business reserves the right to refuse service based on religious beliefs?

ifmaz -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 10:33:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance For those who support such Bills, do think that establishments that chose to exercise their religious beliefs should be required to openly post on the door or window stating that the business reserves the right to refuse service based on religious beliefs? Would it not be easier to have businesses that are "all inclusive" post such notices on their doors?

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 10:37:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance For those who support such Bills, do think that establishments that chose to exercise their religious beliefs should be required to openly post on the door or window stating that the business reserves the right to refuse service based on religious beliefs? Would it not be easier to have businesses that are "all inclusive" post such notices on their doors? Probably, but I'm curious if those who support the Bill would openly state in writing their business discriminates against sexual orientation, based on religious beliefs and if they would support a law requiring them to do just that.

ifmaz -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 10:42:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance For those who support such Bills, do think that establishments that chose to exercise their religious beliefs should be required to openly post on the door or window stating that the business reserves the right to refuse service based on religious beliefs? Would it not be easier to have businesses that are "all inclusive" post such notices on their doors? Probably, but I'm curious if those who support the Bill would openly state in writing their business discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation on religious principals. I don't see why a business would have to make such a claim as it is a round-about way of government using force. Personally, if I see a sign proclaiming "we serve everyone" and the business next door, in the same industry, does not, I'm more likely to give the all-inclusive business my money. People of different beliefs may choose otherwise.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 11:02:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance (Emphasis is DaddySatyr's) Probably, but I'm curious if those who support the Bill would openly state in writing their business discriminates against sexual orientation, based on religious beliefs and if they would *support a law* requiring them to do just that. The government has more than enough control over religious exercise, as it is. I would support a law that says (essentially): Stop the bullshit. Live your life without God, if you choose, but STOP trying to make Christians violate their belief. This is where I draw the line between "atheist" and "God-hater". I've known lots of atheists that just don't believe in God and think that anyone who does is misguided or whatever. The trouble is the God-haters that want to make sure everyone else is just as miserable and fallen from grace as they are. My goodness! We have a president that sees a video of a Christian getting his head sliced off and goes on a rant about how evil Christians *used to be* (He referenced the Crusades). I wonder how that would go, if a retired porn actress accused a guy of rape and a president with an "R" after his name said something like: "Well, I saw the video of her rape and she used to do much more crazy stuff, by her own choice"? Like that makes it alright? Unfortunately, there's obviously, a bunch of people that agree with the morally bankrupt moron. I would say: "Won't it be fun, when a president with Christian values does the polar opposite?". I can't, though. A real Christian wouldn't behave like Barack Hussein O'jack-ass, Michael

ifmaz -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 11:12:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance (Emphasis is DaddySatyr's) Probably, but I'm curious if those who support the Bill would openly state in writing their business discriminates against sexual orientation, based on religious beliefs and if they would *support a law* requiring them to do just that. The government has more than enough control over religious exercise, as it is. I would support a law that says (essentially): Stop the bullshit. Live your life without God, if you choose, but STOP trying to make Christians violate their belief. ... Surely you mean "people of any, or no, religion" and not just Christians.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 11:23:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz Surely you mean "people of any, or no, religion" and not just Christians. I could agree with that. However, Christians seem to be a system-wide "open target", these days. I don't hear many loons railing against Hindus and, let's face, Muslims have become a protected class, as far as the PPLs are concerned. People can say just about anything they want about Christians and try to create laws (Obummercare, anyone?) that violate Christian ethics. Maybe it's prophetic that ol' Dumbo Ears referenced the Crusades. It could happen, again. Christians only have so many cheeks to turn. I think *all* religions should be "hands off" for the government. Surely, that's what the first amendment is supposed to be about. That said, Christians seem to be held in the same esteem that homosexuals *used to be* (about forty years ago or so). So, I do think that Christians should be highlighted, much like we have "women's' rights", "gay rights" ... what have you. Michael

thishereboi -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/10/2016 3:41:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: Does this mean I should automatically support them even if I don't believe what they are saying? How about when they discriminate against trans folks? Should I support them then also based solely on the fact that they are gay? Yea I don't think so, but if that kind of logic works for you, have at it. No, no. All I'm saying is that it would be nice, and a sort of refreshing, to see you supporting LGBT people against the right wingers who are hammering them, just very occasionally. I mean, really - what do you owe those right wingers, and why do they deserve so much of your unstinting loyalty? That's what I don't get. That's ok, there is a lot about you I don't get either.

thishereboi -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/10/2016 3:50:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: For the last fucking time: Ok you got your last say and here is mine.... Facts... Gay goes to therapist... therapist says I will not treat you... therapist denied this gay treatment... this is discrimination, wrong and against his oath... therapist says I'll find another therapist that will treat you... makes no difference the gay was still denied treatment. Now... you would not accept what I said until I delivered a link to the actual bill... How about extening me the same by posting a link to a passage in the Christian Bible that says it is against Gods word to treat the illness of a homosexual. Butch How about this...Gay goes to therapist. Therapist welcomes gay into office because the law says he has to and sets up multiple sessions. After a few months, Gay realizes that therapist really thinks being gay is the disease and starts to add up how much money and time he has wasted on a therapist who isn't trying to fix the actual problem and is more concerned with changing his sexuality. Gay still has problem but can't find a new doc because his insurance will only cover so many appointments and he wasted them all on the first doc.

thishereboi -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/10/2016 3:59:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 you are saying exactly what she is saying you are. No, I'm not. Thishereboi almost never sees what anti-right-wingers are saying, and this case isn't an exception. quote: she's not being "loyal" to right wingers. she's being consistent with her social political worldviews that just happen to trump sexual orientation and it seems to me she explained that pretty well. She's being utterly loyal to the right wing, as always. Her social political worldview is right wing - and that always trumps sexual orientation, for her. She's never explained why that trumps sexual orientation, either; all I can tell is that it always, always does. quote: quote: and I don't see any "hammering" going on at all. no ones condemning gays, criticizing them, making their activities illegal, etc. They are, Bounty. Seriously, how can you say this - of the Christian Right in the deep south of the USA, of all places? quote: "if anyone getting hammered here, its Christians of a particular conscience. you either support their freedom, or youre another liberal proponent (how ironic the contradiction of terms) of an authoritarian state. Utter crap. These aren't Christians of 'a particular conscience'. They're just nasty, prejudiced little arses who want to carry on being nasty, prejudiced and arsey, and are bleating and whining about not being able to do so. That is, they want to be authoritarian, as they've been so, so used to being, for so long, and now feel their privilege being eroded ... hence their whinnying in dismay. Honestly, Bounty. It's seriously pathetic to try to swing it all around so that you now claim that it's such 'Christians' are being persecuted. As for the 'authoritarianism' of those who are against these 'Christians' - nup. I'd suggest you google that term 'authoritarianism'. Of all the terms that might, even possibly, be in their armory - that one, most of all, is not there for them. Right wing Christians have invoked the Bible as their authority for centuries in support of their rich array of hatreds, despite the Bible's manifest wooliness on all those hatreds. But this hasn't stopped them. Right wing Christians know that they're 'right', and that has always been that, for them. That's what authoritarianism really is: 'knowing' that you 'have authority' on a given matter. It's a pisspoor piece of work to try to pin that nasty term 'authoritarianism' on 'lefties' who are against this loathsome sort of law. It's like a pot calling a whole factory full of kettles 'black'. I don't see what anit-right wingers are saying? They are saying everyone on the right is a homophobic racist little asshat. They also seem to think there are no LGBT on the right and no christians on the left. They can't stick with facts and have to exaggerate everything they say to make their point. Then they wonder why people don't trust what they say. Not sure how you missed that. I've said it enough times. But then again you seem to think I have always been on the right so I shouldn't be too surprised you got that wrong also.

thishereboi -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/10/2016 4:09:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML @ifmaz quote: By eliminating these sorts of bills, does that not pave way for a gay-owned bakery to be forced to create a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church that says "death to all gays" or whatever their chosen slogan is? Would it not also 'force' Jewish bakeries to bake pro-Nazi cakes? Could the KKK force a black-owned business to create cakes depicting lynchings? Would a Muslim bakery be forced to make a cake made of bacon? Shamefully dissembling is what you are doing. The principle issue raised by these laws is religious conscience. There is nothing in our Constitution that guarantees religious conscience. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " The key word is "exercise." We're talkin about exercise here. When you convert religious conscience into exercise you are exercising discrimination, not religion. You simply cannot hide that by making up shit about religious conscience, which is not a constitutional issue. When you open a business you depend on the police to protect your property rights. You depend on the roads and sidewalks to bring customers to you. You depend on public utilities to maintain the town in which you seek to make a living. All of that is provided by the taxes everybody pays. LBGT folks work, own property, and pay taxes so you can run your business in an orderly civic environment. So, yes, since everybody supports your store you damn well have a duty to serve everybody. The Westboro Baptist Church members pay taxes. If the Westboro Baptist Church was to enter my hypothetical store would I not be able to refuse them as they disgust me, and could I not cite my religious convictions of everyone being equal when I did so? Or would I instead be forced to provide them services? Freedom includes the side-effect of "tolerating" things you don't necessarily agree with. Let the free market decide what it will tolerate; if enough people discover the views of companies and opt to not do business with them, those businesses will eventually fold. Instead, what you are demanding is government coercion. I don't know why, I had a racist come into my store and I threw him out on his ignorant ass and told him never to come back. I wasn't forced to tolerate him or the crap that came out of his mouth. Now I assume he pays taxes, but honestly didn't even think about it when it happened and I am not sure why I would have cared.

thishereboi -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/10/2016 4:21:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance For those who support such Bills, do think that establishments that chose to exercise their religious beliefs should be required to openly post on the door or window stating that the business reserves the right to refuse service based on religious beliefs? I don't see why they wouldn't. They certainly can't claim they are ashamed of their beliefs so why not put them out there for all to see. It would make choosing the right bakery for a gay wedding a lot easier and put the decision to shop there in the hands of the consumer. Then I wouldn't have to wonder if the baker was going to do a good job or worry that they secretly hate gays and are just baking it because the law says they have to. Now I don't know about you, but I do a much better job at the things I like and not so much one the things I don't like but are forced to do anyway. And to be honest, if I owned a bakery and I was forced to bake a cake for say westborough, I might forget to cover my mouth when I sneezed or something else nasty might happen to it, but they would never know, would they? wink wink

thompsonx -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/10/2016 4:52:42 AM)
ORIGINAL: ifmaz Would it not be easier to have businesses that are "all inclusive" post such notices on their doors? Would it easier to not be an asshole?

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/10/2016 6:59:13 AM)
DaddySatyr posted: "...Maybe it's prophetic that ol' Dumbo Ears referenced the Crusades. It could happen, again. Christians only have so many cheeks to turn. ..." Considering there have been so many crimes against humanity done in the name of religion; The Crusades among them, I'm finding a bit of sad irony that you feel the same is happening or will/could happen to those of the Christian Faith. Or extremely concerned that you might be implying you think there should be a return of The Crusades to punish the sinners or as some faiths call them, infidels.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/10/2016 7:04:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance DaddySatyr posted: "...Maybe it's prophetic that ol' Dumbo Ears referenced the Crusades. It could happen, again. Christians only have so many cheeks to turn. ..." Considering there have been so many crimes against humanity done in the name of religion; The Crusades among them, I'm finding a bit of sad irony that you feel the same is happening or will/could happen to those of the Christian Faith. Or extremely concerned that you might be implying you think there should be a return of The Crusades to punish the sinners or as some faiths call them, infidels. I find it extremely concerning that you're so willfully ignorant of plain facts that stare you in the face and choose to sensationalize the words of others. I guess you'll have to learn to live with your disappointment. I won't have to learn to live with your'n as I'm done with your brand of inane crap.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/10/2016 7:06:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance DaddySatyr posted: "...Maybe it's prophetic that ol' Dumbo Ears referenced the Crusades. It could happen, again. Christians only have so many cheeks to turn. ..." Considering there have been so many crimes against humanity done in the name of religion; The Crusades among them, I'm finding a bit of sad irony that you feel the same is happening or will/could happen to those of the Christian Faith. Or extremely concerned that you might be implying you think there should be a return of The Crusades to punish the sinners or as some faiths call them, infidels. I find it extremely concerning that you're so willfully ignorant of plain facts that stare you in the face and choose to sensationalize the words of others. I guess you'll have to learn to live with your disappointment. I won't have to learn to live with your'n as I'm done with your brand of inane crap. As you wish.

Nnanji -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/10/2016 7:10:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: It's seriously pathetic to try to swing it all around so that you now claim that it's such 'Christians' are being persecuted. Cloaking bigotry in "religion" doesnt make it any less bigoted. Oh and calling people out on their bigotry isnt persecution, its accountability... I agree. Nor is cloaking bigotry in political correctness.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875