Daniel2 Posted February 25, 2014 Author Posted February 25, 2014 All those who are against this legislation, are you also against granting a potential soldier Conscientious Objector status? If not, what do you see as the difference?A conscious objector may exempt himself from being a soldier. In so doing, he's no longer a soldier and essentially gives up his job and finds another vocation.The same principle applies to someone who consciously objects to their previously chosen profession of baking cakes.A soldier may not "consciously object" to protecting (serving) everyone EXCEPT a certain segment of the population that they personally disagree with... like blacks. Or Jews. Or Muslims. Or Mormons. Or gays. He must either protect and serve all, or loses his job.
Gray 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. Would that be more immoral somehow than if they were just living together? What about if a gay person wants to buy some jewelry for their spouse as an anniversary present. Would it be a violation of Christian principles to sell them a necklace?
Gray Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 You totally missed my point. Every business serves exclusively sinners. There is no getting around it. But the business isn't refusing to serve gays, it's refusing to service/support an occasion, that in the moral opinion of the owners, celebrates sin and denigrates that which they hold sacred. They might feel the same way about a Wiccan solstice cake. Or not. But if you don't see the difference between refusing to help a person and refusing to support a particular ceremony, I didn't communicate very well. In what way does a gay couple getting married celebrate sin in a way that remaining unmarried does not?
Gray Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 The bottom line is no one is being discriminated against. Gays would be just as within their rights to not serve Mormons because of disagreement with their doctrinal beliefs. And if one (Gay or Mormon) were to be found beaten and robbed in the street, then one could choose to walk around on the other side or stop and render aid if such is their choice. And thus the Plan of Salvation (2 Nephi 2) served with just laws such as this. We are free to choose in both the plan of salvation and laws that reflect it; and such choices provide real growth and show which enticements we are are willing to follow (Abraham 3:25). No, that's not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Daniel2 Posted February 25, 2014 Author Posted February 25, 2014 Must a photographer accept a contract at a marriage ceremony where the marriage is solemnized by a public sex act?It would be a marriage, so how could he object to the ceremony?If he can turn down such a contract, why can't he turn down any other one?No. No business can or should be forced to provide services for illegal activities, including (but not limited to) public sex acts.Because it's not illegal for gay and lesbian couples to have a commitment ceremony, and the behaviors being displayed are equitable with the behaviors at a straight wedding.Now, please answer my question about the "ridiculously inaccurate reporting" you believe is in the OP.
Gray Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Really? Cause the cake seems to be an important part of the wedding ceramony to many people. It's a cake.
rockpond Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 All those who are against this legislation, are you also against granting a potential soldier Conscientious Objector status? If not, what do you see as the difference? So now we are equating being ordered to kill someone with baking a cake?
Daniel2 Posted February 25, 2014 Author Posted February 25, 2014 So now we are equating being ordered to kill someone with baking a cake?Not to mention equating being a wedding photographer with being a pornographer.Hyperbole seems to be running rampant in this thread.
california boy Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 You totally missed my point. Every business serves exclusively sinners. There is no getting around it. But the business isn't refusing to serve gays, it's refusing to service/support an occasion, that in the moral opinion of the owners, celebrates sin and denigrates that which they hold sacred. They might feel the same way about a Wiccan solstice cake. Or not. But if you don't see the difference between refusing to help a person and refusing to support a particular ceremony, I didn't communicate very well.I certainly don't see the difference if the reason they object to the marriage event is because they feel it is immoral. Perhaps you could explain how a gay couple living in sin is less moral than a gay couple that is married. Certainly you are not suggesting that marriage itself is immoral. What difference would it make if the couple is gay getting married or a straight couple is getting married other then the fact that they are gay. If the only reason they object to the wedding is because the couple is gay, then they are just showing animus towards gay people and it has nothing at all to do with immorality. Once again it just comes down to bigotry. And once again, they are using the christian religion to support their bigotry. This is quite similar to the church's position against gay marriage, claiming it is a moral issue. Yet no one can explain how not allowing gay couples to marry makes them more moral. Or can anyone explain how straight couples are more moral if ssm is stopped. A wedding celebrates the commitment and coming together of two people. It is not a comment on how they have sex. The sex will be exactly the same whether they are married or not. You have to argue that the commitment and coming together is somehow immoral. Can you do that?
bluebell Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Not to mention equating being a wedding photographer with being a pornographer.Hyperbole seems to be running rampant in this thread. No one, but you guys, are making these equations. What is occurring is that some people are trying to equate something that someone might personally believes is immoral, with something else that someone might personally believe is immoral. They are doing this in an attempt to move the conversation beyond homosexuality and into more general 'is it o.k. to not want to do something you believe is sinful' terms because for them, that is the relevant concern. It's not the 'thing' that someone believes is immoral that is the issue. It's the belief of it being immoral that is the important part of this debate for those making these comparisons. There is no reason to reduce such comparisons to the most absurd and simplest terms (beyond it being a form of a fallacy, it's just not very honest when someone does it knowingly), unless someone feels that they must first weaken and change the argument before they have a way to counter it. If for you, or others, the most important part of this topic is the thing that is thought to be immoral (in this case, SSM) then that is fine. Focus on that. But don't try to force someone else into the same emphasis (and misconstrue their arguments when they won't agree with you) if that is not what they are focusing on.
california boy Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 It's more than propaganda. It's a deliberate attack on people of faith. Which is the point of forcing gay marriage laws on the people in the first place. As a Church, we've already seen the Adversary use marriage laws to attack and persecute us, does anyone really think it will be different this time?When Mormons were being attacked for their marriage beliefs it was the Adversary. When it is the Mormons that are attacking someone else's marriage beliefs it is ___________ that is attacking their beliefs. Tell me what goes in the blank. The persecuted become the persecutors. I bet I don't get a response to this post.
california boy Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 No one, but you guys, are making these equations. What is occurring is that some people are trying to equate something that someone might personally believes is immoral, with something else that someone might personally believe is immoral. They are doing this in an attempt to move the conversation beyond homosexuality and into more general 'is it o.k. to not want to do something you believe is sinful' terms because for them, that is the relevant concern. It's not the 'thing' that someone believes is immoral that is the issue. It's the belief of it being immoral that is the important part of this debate for those making these comparisons. There is no reason to reduce such comparisons to the most absurd and simplest terms (beyond it being a form of a fallacy, it's just not very honest when someone does it knowingly), unless someone feels that they must first weaken and change the argument before they have a way to counter it. If for you, or others, the most important part of this topic is the thing that is thought to be immoral (in this case, SSM) then that is fine. Focus on that. But don't try to force someone else into the same emphasis (and misconstrue their arguments when they won't agree with you) if that is not what they are focusing on.Ok I will focus on that. Since this is not about gay sex, what is immoral about SSM? Just what commandment is violated when a gay couple decides to marry.
Gray Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 No one, but you guys, are making these equations. What is occurring is that some people are trying to equate something that someone might personally believes is immoral, with something else that someone might personally believe is immoral. They are doing this in an attempt to move the conversation beyond homosexuality and into more general 'is it o.k. to not want to do something you believe is sinful' terms because for them, that is the relevant concern. It's not the 'thing' that someone believes is immoral that is the issue. It's the belief of it being immoral that is the important part of this debate for those making these comparisons. There is no reason to reduce such comparisons to the most absurd and simplest terms (beyond it being a form of a fallacy, it's just not very honest when someone does it knowingly), unless someone feels that they must first weaken and change the argument before they have a way to counter it. If for you, or others, the most important part of this topic is the thing that is thought to be immoral (in this case, SSM) then that is fine. Focus on that. But don't try to force someone else into the same emphasis (and misconstrue their arguments when they won't agree with you) if that is not what they are focusing on. Personal beliefs have to come second to serving the general public without prejudice. If you're not prepared to do that, you shouldn't be in a business where your beliefs might be compromised.
bluebell Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Ok I will focus on that. Since this is not about gay sex, what is immoral about SSM? Those people who believe that it's immoral do so because they believe God has declared it so. Remember, this is not about first proving whether or not something is immoral before someone can then object if they are forced to do it. No one making the comparison arguments, that i have seen anyway (and maybe i missed something) is trying to argue that a belief must be agreed upon by all concerned first before it's valid. This is about what people sincerely and honestly believe to be immoral. Whether we agree with them or not is completely beside the point. Our opinions have no sway on or authority over the sincere beliefs of someone else.
bluebell Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Personal beliefs have to come second to serving the general public without prejudice. If you're not prepared to do that, you shouldn't be in a business where your beliefs might be compromised. Why though? Why does it HAVE to be that way?
rockpond Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 No one, but you guys, are making these equations. What is occurring is that some people are trying to equate something that someone might personally believes is immoral, with something else that someone might personally believe is immoral. They are doing this in an attempt to move the conversation beyond homosexuality and into more general 'is it o.k. to not want to do something you believe is sinful' terms because for them, that is the relevant concern. It's not the 'thing' that someone believes is immoral that is the issue. It's the belief of it being immoral that is the important part of this debate for those making these comparisons. There is no reason to reduce such comparisons to the most absurd and simplest terms (beyond it being a form of a fallacy, it's just not very honest when someone does it knowingly), unless someone feels that they must first weaken and change the argument before they have a way to counter it. If for you, or others, the most important part of this topic is the thing that is thought to be immoral (in this case, SSM) then that is fine. Focus on that. But don't try to force someone else into the same emphasis (and misconstrue their arguments when they won't agree with you) if that is not what they are focusing on. I understand that. But using the "conscientious objector" analogy... The objector believes that the action being asked (killing someone even in defense of one's country) is immoral. With the bakery, the action being asked is to bake a wedding cake. The baker doesn't believe that baking a cake is immoral. The baker believes that what his customers are doing is immoral. I think there is an important distinction there.
bluebell Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 When Mormons were being attacked for their marriage beliefs it was the Adversary. When it is the Mormons that are attacking someone else's marriage beliefs it is ___________ that is attacking their beliefs. Tell me what goes in the blank. The persecuted become the persecutors. I bet I don't get a response to this post. It's all relative. When gays and lesbians (and their supporters) boycott a business because an employee or owner doesn't support SSM, it's a fight for freedom, equality, and all that is good in the world. When someone against SSM boycotts a business because the owner believes in SSM, it's discrimination (and pure evil, depending on who you are talking to). The persecuted have become the persecutors, with nary a nudge of conscience in sight. And why? Because they believe their cause is just and they believe anyone who opposes their cause isn't. It's not complicated, and if it's hypocritical then we can rest easy knowing that we are all the pot calling the kettle black since every group does it.
bluebell Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I understand that. But using the "conscientious objector" analogy... The objector believes that the action being asked (killing someone even in defense of one's country) is immoral. With the bakery, the action being asked is to bake a wedding cake. The baker doesn't believe that baking a cake is immoral. The baker believes that what his customers are doing is immoral. I think there is an important distinction there. You are missing the point though. The baker may believe that what the customer is doing is immoral, but that's not the problem they are focused on and trying to prevent from happening. If it was, the baker would be out trying to stop the SSM. No, the actual problem, for the conscience of the baker, is not that something they believe is immoral is going to take place. The actual problem is that they are being asked (or forced) to play a part in something that is immoral. They aren't' trying to prevent the wedding, they are trying to prevent being a part of the wedding. So absolutely the baker believes the action that is being asked of him (baking a cake for a SSM) is immoral.
Damien the Leper Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I am curious to know whether or not a business would refuse services to a heterosexual couple where the woman is pregnant just as would supposed business would refuse services to a gay couple. To suggest that the determining factors are based solely on sexual orientation or solely on sexual sin is illogical. There is no lesser of two evils in this analogy.
Sleeper Cell Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I understand that. But using the "conscientious objector" analogy... The objector believes that the action being asked (killing someone even in defense of one's country) is immoral. With the bakery, the action being asked is to bake a wedding cake. The baker doesn't believe that baking a cake is immoral. The baker believes that what his customers are doing is immoral. I think there is an important distinction there.So it is OK to draft conscious objectors as cooks or in some other capacity that does not require them to kill anyone?
rockpond Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 You are missing the point though. The baker may believe that what the customer is doing is immoral, but that's not the problem they are focused on and trying to prevent from happening. If it was, the baker would be out trying to stop the SSM. No, the actual problem, for the conscience of the baker, is not that something they believe is immoral is going to take place. The actual problem is that they are being asked (or forced) to play a part in something that is immoral. They aren't' trying to prevent the wedding, they are trying to prevent being a part of the wedding. So absolutely the baker believes the action that is being asked of him (baking a cake for a SSM) is immoral. Alright. Fair enough. I still do not believe that, in the baker example, any religious freedoms are being infringed. I do, however, believe that the baker should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason and then face the consequences. It's just sad to me that people are, as California Boy has explained, hiding animus toward gays in the guise of religious freedom.
rockpond Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 So it is OK to draft conscious objectors as cooks or in some other capacity that does not require them to kill anyone? I don't know what the conscientious objector law is, exactly, but I do believe that as a citizen of the country you need to do your part to defend it. If you can't hold a weapon then, yeah, at least go be a cook and serve in the best way that you can.
Daniel2 Posted February 25, 2014 Author Posted February 25, 2014 No one, but you guys, are making these equations.Um.... I've interacted with you a lot in the past, Blue, and I've always found your responses to be thoughtful, even when we have disagreed. I think you're confusing me with others, in your post above. I have not made the "equations" you say that "us guys" are making--I am directly responding to such examples brought up by those who apparently support the AZ legislation.What is occurring is that some people are trying to equate something that someone might personally believes is immoral, with something else that someone might personally believe is immoral.As previously explained, the differences on the examples are that laws in general--even anti-discrimination ones--protect businesses from engaging in "illegal" activities, which are not always synonymous with "immoral" activities.There is no reason to reduce such comparisons to the most absurd and simplest terms (beyond it being a form of a fallacy, it's just not very honest when someone does it knowingly), unless someone feels that they must first weaken and change the argument before they have a way to counter it.I agree.If for you, or others, the most important part of this topic is the thing that is thought to be immoral (in this case, SSM) then that is fine. Focus on that. But don't try to force someone else into the same emphasis (and misconstrue their arguments when they won't agree with you) if that is not what they are focusing on.And that is why just this morning, I attempted to refocus the discussion on this legislation.
thesometimesaint Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 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. The ONLY difference is the target of the discrimination.
thesometimesaint Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 So it is OK to draft conscious objectors as cooks or in some other capacity that does not require them to kill anyone? CO's make some of the best doctors, nurses, and medics.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.