Gray Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Maybe they should get out of that business. Hopefully we will never be in their position where we believe we have to choose between supporting our families and offending God. I'm sure if it happens to us (and it very easily could-society and what they are willing to accept changes on a whim and while we might be on the 'right' side at one moment we could easily be on the wrong side the next), we would not view that choice as flippantly as we might when this kind of dilemma pertains only to someone else. Obviously though, people should follow their conscience, and if the government and/or society makes it impossible to do that in a certain profession then hard choices will have to be made. Some people might not wish to serve Mormons or blacks due to some religious beliefs. While everyone is entitled to their beliefs, discrimination isn't something we can really allow in the case of for-profit business and in the government.
The Nehor Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 I think we need laws protecting the nation's shoeless and shirtless from discrimination.
bluebell Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 I think we need laws protecting the nation's shoeless and shirtless from discrimination. Seriously. How dare we allow businesses to discriminate!
bluebell Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 It's all right with me if it's all right with you. Definitely. I don't think I've yet tried to bully anyone (by trying to make them feel like a horrible person or a horrible Christian) for disagreeing with me on this thread. If i have then i apologize. We all have our opinions. I think we only get into trouble when we try to frame our opinions as if they are facts.
Gray Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 I think we need laws protecting the nation's shoeless and shirtless from discrimination. There was an onion link here. Auto filtered out maybe?
Calm Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 discrimination isn't something we can really allow in the case of for-profit business and in the government. Why not? Serious question. I can see where one is providing the only service of something in a reasonable area especially medical and educational opportunities, but if there are other viable options? We allow people to promote the positive things of their business in order to draw people in, to create actual differences between businesses. Why not let the negative stuff stand as well and let the customer decide whether or not he wants to support an establishment that discriminates?
Gray Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Definitely. I don't think I've yet tried to bully anyone (by trying to make them feel like a horrible person or a horrible Christian) for disagreeing with me on this thread. If i have then i apologize. We all have our opinions. I think we only get into trouble when we try to frame our opinions as if they are facts. I don't think you have - you've been very cordial as far as I'm concerned.
Gray Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Why not? Serious question. I can see where one is providing the only service of something in a reasonable area especially medical and educational opportunities, but if there are other viable options? We allow people to promote the positive things of their business in order to draw people in, to create actual differences between businesses. Why not let the negative stuff stand as well and let the customer decide whether or not he wants to support an establishment that discriminates? Because we allow businesses to provide necessary and exclusive services. There is no government grocery store. If all the grocery chains start barring a certain group, they'll starve. The problem with "letting the customer decide" is it unpopular and small minority groups always suffer.
thesometimesaint Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 But can't you see the difference between the discrimination against blacks and the present discrimination against homosexuals? The discrimination de jour against Blacks was born out of religious teachings...see its different than the discrimination against homosexuals. Absolutely.
thesometimesaint Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Why not? Serious question. I can see where one is providing the only service of something in a reasonable area especially medical and educational opportunities, but if there are other viable options? We allow people to promote the positive things of their business in order to draw people in, to create actual differences between businesses. Why not let the negative stuff stand as well and let the customer decide whether or not he wants to support an establishment that discriminates? Really do you have to ask in 2014 with states enacting laws to prevent the poor, various minorities, college students from voting. I have absolutely no problem with any business out competing another business. I do have plenty of problems with businesses that discriminate based on anything other than price and quality of merchandise. Say you want to leave your state and move to another. That should be fine right? Lets also say the no will help load up all your family's goods, rent you the truck to haul them, sell you the gas to power that truck? Sure you can give it all up and walk, but even the early Saints used handcarts.
Calm Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Because we allow businesses to provide necessary and exclusive services. There is no government grocery store. If all the grocery chains start barring a certain group, they'll starve. The problem with "letting the customer decide" is it unpopular and small minority groups always suffer.So what about having a law that allows on to refuse if there is another viable option with a reasonable distance.I don't see wedding cakes as a necessary serive myself. I didn't have one. Nor a professional photographer.I can see doctors, pharmacies, food, cars and a few other services, but if not a necessity, what is the rationale then?
thesometimesaint Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 So what about having a law that allows on to refuse if there is another viable option with a reasonable distance.I don't see wedding cakes as a necessary serive myself. I didn't have one. Nor a professional photographer.I can see doctors, pharmacies, food, cars and a few other services, but if not a necessity, what is the rationale then? I don't know you'll have to ask the blacks why they could not just eat else where. I didn't have any of those either, but that was my choice, and not one imposed upon me by the state. One mans necessity is another mans luxury.
The Nehor Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 There was an onion link here. Auto filtered out maybe?No, but I know the article you mean:http://www.theonion.com/articles/nations-shirtless-shoeless-march-on-washington-for,262/
Calm Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 I don't know you'll have to ask the blacks why they could not just eat else where.I didn't have any of those either, but that was my choice, and not one imposed upon me by the state.One mans necessity is another mans luxury.Oh please. You are acting like we are demanding that people be happy for being refused service when it has been made clear that we feel perfectly comfortable if the response to the refusal is to publicise it or even boycott/picket the establishment so everyone knows so they can choose whether to support the bigotry with their money.We think people should be able to choose what to support even if they are wrong and be required to live with the consequences of that choice. Does that sound familiar?
rockpond Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Oh please. You are acting like we are demanding that people be happy for being refused service when it has been made clear that we feel perfectly comfortable if the response to the refusal is to publicise it or even boycott/picket the establishment so everyone knows so they can choose whether to support the bigotry with their money.We think people should be able to choose what to support even if they are wrong and be required to live with the consequences of that choice. Does that sound familiar? A lot of my extended family members were very upset when a boycott was organized against the Ender's Game movie due to Orson Scott Card's involvement in the campaign against gay marriage. And yet, they feel that anyone should be able to refuse to provide a service that is even tangentially related to a gay marriage. For me, those two positions cannot logically be held by the same person.
thesometimesaint Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Oh please. You are acting like we are demanding that people be happy for being refused service when it has been made clear that we feel perfectly comfortable if the response to the refusal is to publicise it or even boycott/picket the establishment so everyone knows so they can choose whether to support the bigotry with their money.We think people should be able to choose what to support even if they are wrong and be required to live with the consequences of that choice. Does that sound familiar? White people in the south were perfectly happy with the discrimination. It took "Commie outside agitators" picketing and riding on buses that put an end to it.
Buzzard Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 And just how does this work? Does this baker believe that gays are only immoral if they want to get married?We are all immoral about something. But I think you can see it would be obvious if two women came in and ordered a rainbow-themed wedding cake saying "Congratulations on your wedding, Tanya and Sheila", versus wandering in the front door and asking for a half dozen chocolate cupcakes and a turkey croissant to go.
rockpond Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 We are all immoral about something. But I think you can see it would be obvious if two women came in and ordered a rainbow-themed wedding cake saying "Congratulations on your wedding, Tanya and Sheila", versus wandering in the front door and asking for a half dozen chocolate cupcakes and a turkey croissant to go. Well, now that you put it that way, I can see how making a rainbow themed cake interferes with someone's free exercise of religion.
bluebell Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Well, now that you put it that way, I can see how making a rainbow themed cake interferes with someone's free exercise of religion. Yay! Finally rockpond sees reason.
rockpond Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Yay! Finally rockpond sees reason.Yep, it's a frosting-covered slippery slope... One day you are minding your own business running a bakery, then you're making a rainbow cake, before you know it you and your gay/lesbian life partner will be banging on the door of the temple demanding to be sealed. Seriously though, I am glad that church leadership has changed its position to supporting non-discrimination ordinances for homosexuals.
california boy Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 We are all immoral about something. But I think you can see it would be obvious if two women came in and ordered a rainbow-themed wedding cake saying "Congratulations on your wedding, Tanya and Sheila", versus wandering in the front door and asking for a half dozen chocolate cupcakes and a turkey croissant to go.So just exactly why should a bakery discriminate against the immorality of a gay couple when as you say, we are all immoral about something? Is the standard for this bakery, "We only serve those that are pure and without sin?" Or is this just bigotry against gays under the guise of "religion". Typical religious hypocrisy. And some wonder why so many people are leaving religion.
rockpond Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 So just exactly why should a bakery discriminate against the immorality of a gay couple when as you say, we are all immoral about something? Is the standard for this bakery, "We only serve those that are pure and without sin?" Or is this just bigotry against gays under the guise of "religion". Typical religious hypocrisy. And some wonder why so many people are leaving religion.What you've illustrated here is why we continue to see judges declare that much of the anti-gay-marriage legislation is rooted in animus. For example, our church seems to have no problem building a mall that caters to word of wisdom violations, immodest dress, and materialism. But heaven forbid a professional photographer be required by non-discrimination laws to not refuse service to a gay couple... Suddenly we're in danger of losing our religious freedom.
Calm Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 A lot of my extended family members were very upset when a boycott was organized against the Ender's Game movie due to Orson Scott Card's involvement in the campaign against gay marriage. And yet, they feel that anyone should be able to refuse to provide a service that is even tangentially related to a gay marriage. For me, those two positions cannot logically be held by the same person. I agree that those positions should not exist. If we insist that someone has the right to refuse, we need to include a viable way for the person refuse to respond. The whole point for me is that people have to deal with the consequences of their beliefs and feelings and are not protected from them because the government forces them to act like decent people. And I think people should be proud to stand up for their religious beliefs in any situation, even if they are persecuted for them. It should never be 'we should be able to refuse others because we don't believe in their religious beliefs but we should be protected from being refused in any way for our own'. Boycotting can be taken too far, but I do think a business that refuses service should be able to be boycotted. I don't think a private donation should lead to a public boycott or forcing of someone out of job.
Calm Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 White people in the south were perfectly happy with the discrimination. It took "Commie outside agitators" picketing and riding on buses that put an end to it. Has nothing to do with our positions here on the board. Who are you arguing with? If people keep putting up positions that are not held by me or bluebell, I don't see any need for us to keep posting here.
Storm Rider Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 No one here has attempted to tell another person what their religious beliefs are. Though it is quite easy to learn what Mormons believe without being a Mormon. LDS.org is a great source of information on what the LDS believe.It is also equally foolish, or a fallacy, to claim that a religious belief equals an organized Faith teaching the expressed belief. How much variation in "religious belief" is found the membership of the LDS - the Prophet of which is President Monson? And this goes to your point, just because a person who is LDS says "my religous beliefs" does not mean LDS Church teaches those things. So a conscientious objector to war would need to prove that they belong to a religion that specifically teaches that all war is wrong and their members should not bear arms? Hmm, what about the individual unaffiliated with organized religion? Isn't it possible that they have deeply held spiritual beliefs? Should only the teachings of organized religion be protected?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.