"Why Are Companies Taking Sides against Religious Liberty"

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Okay... so liberty only belongs to those who agree with your religious views?  Discriminating against a gay couple is okay.  Discriminating in favor of the gay couple is wrong?

ETA:  This still isn't evidence of companies taking sides against religious liberty, it is evidence of companies taking sides against views that they disagree with.  I still invite someone/anyone to provide the evidence of companies taking sides against religious liberty.

No, liberty belongs to all but liberty should be used only to choose/ do what is right and good.

Anything less is an abuse of that freedom. 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, liberty belongs to all but liberty should be used only to choose/ do what is right and good.

Anything less is an abuse of that freedom. 

So the NCAA abused their freedom by taking their business elsewhere?

I don't really have time to delve into your thoughts on how our country should apparently be a theocracy.  It isn't, deal with it.

I was just asking if anyone had real evidence to support the claim that companies are taking sides AGAINST religious liberty.  I take it that you do not.

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So the NCAA abused their freedom by taking their business elsewhere?

No. I said they were wrong only because you said they were against discrimination.  

I don't know why they were against discrimination, or if they still are against it, in principle,  but to be against it in principle is just wrong.

Say it with me this time: Discrimination is good when what you are discriminating against is not good. 

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No. I said they were wrong only because you said they were against discrimination.  

I don't know why they were against discrimination, or if they still are against it, in principle,  but to be against it in principle is just wrong.

Say it with me this time: Discrimination is good when what you are discriminating against is not good. 

Are you saying it is good to discriminate against LGBT persons?

Clearly they are not against discrimination in principle.  They seem to be against the legislation.  Or maybe they aren't even against the legislation... they just don't want to do business there.  That should be their choice to discriminate, right?

Edited April 19, 2016 by rockpond

[Ahab]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Are you saying it is good to discriminate against LGBT persons?

Clearly they are not against discrimination in principle.  They seem to be against the legislation.  Or maybe they aren't even against the legislation... they just don't want to do business there.  That should be their choice to discriminate, right?

It is good to discriminate against LGBT persons ONLY WHEN they are doing things that only LGBT people do.  

Or as I would rather say, it is good to discriminate against ANY person or persons when they are doing things that are not good for them to be doing.

Imagine me seeing someone doing something they should not be doing and then me doing something to try to get them to stop doing that.  

And then if they asked me to help them do it, knowing that I didn't approve of them doing that ???

Pffttt, imagine a big giant NO!!! coming out of my mouth and me looking at them as if they are mentally deficient in some way. 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

It is good to discriminate against LGBT persons ONLY WHEN they are doing things that only LGBT people do.  

Or as I would rather say, it is good to discriminate against ANY person or persons when they are doing things that are not good for them to be doing.

Imagine me seeing someone doing something they should not be doing and then me doing something to try to get them to stop doing that.  

And then if they asked me to help them do it, knowing that I didn't approve of them doing that ???

Pffttt, imagine a big giant NO!!! coming out of my mouth and me looking at them as if they are mentally deficient in some way. 

I understand that the basis of your position here is that you are opposed to homosexuality.  Got it.

Well, there are, apparently, companies who believe that is is not good for states to be pass legislation that allows for discrimination against LGBT persons.  So I guess it is good that they are discriminating.  They are following your guidelines for "good discrimination".

Do you have any actual & legally recognizable evidence that companies are taking sides against religious liberty (as the thread title and op-ed author claim)?  That's all I am trying to get to.  I really have very little interest in your opinion on this matter.

[Ahab]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I understand that the basis of your position here is that you are opposed to homosexuality.  Got it.

Well, there are, apparently, companies who believe that is is not good for states to be passing legislation that allows for discrimination against LGBT persons.  So I guess it is good that they are discriminating.  They are following your guidelines for "good discrimination"

I don't consider their discrimination to be good discrimination because those companies should not be discriminating against that legislation.  The discrimination they are against is the good discrimination and what theirs is the bad discrimination.

Or to say it another way,  those companies that are against that legislation are against the religious liberty of those who are promoting that legislation to accommodate people with religious objections to providing particular services to LGBT activities. 

Instead of allowing legislation that mandates everybody using the bathrooms that align with the sex they are when they are born they want legislation that allows everybody to use whatever bathroom they feel most comfortable in.

And instead of allowing legislation that allows bakers to refuse to bake wedding cakes for LGBT "weddings" they want legislation that doesn't allow bakers to refuse.

They're just like everybody else, opposed to religious liberty unless people use it as they think they should.

[rockpond]

58 minutes ago, Ahab said:

They're just like everybody else, opposed to religious liberty unless people use it as they think they should.

But that sentence above describes you as well.  Why can't the companies refuse to serve those states that pass legislation disagreeing with what they value?  Basically your answer is that those companies are wrong -- but that's subjective.  

Either the Baker and the NCAA both get to choose what they value, and run their businesses accordingly or you are being selective about who gets religious liberty.

You think the NCAA is wrong for not supporting the bakery's right to refuse service but you don't allow for the NCAA to refuse service.  You are doing the same thing the NCAA is doing.

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Why can't the companies refuse to serve those states that pass legislation disagreeing with what they value? Basically your answer is that those companies are wrong -- but that's subjective.  

Either the Baker and the NCAA both get to choose what they value, and run their businesses accordingly or you are being selective about who gets religious liberty.

You think the NCAA is wrong for not supporting the bakery's right to refuse service but you don't allow for the NCAA to refuse service.  You are doing the same thing the NCAA is doing.

The point is that they are taking a side,  and that the side they are taking is against the religious liberty of the other side... against the choice the other side would prefer based on the religious liberty they would like to exercise.   

You can pretend those companies are not taking a side against the religious liberty of the other side if you want to, thinking the companies are only against the other side's choice and that religious liberty has nothing at all to do with what they are against,  but still there are basically 2 sides against each other and the companies are picking a side to be on.

So both sides are exercising or at least trying to exercise their own religious liberty and each side is against the opposing side. 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The point is that they are taking a side,  and that the side they are taking is against the religious liberty of the other side... against the choice the other side would prefer based on the religious liberty they would like to exercise.   

You can pretend those companies are not taking a side against the religious liberty of the other side if you want to, thinking the companies are only against the other side's choice and that religious liberty has nothing at all to do with what they are against,  but still there are basically 2 sides against each other and the companies are picking a side to be on.

So both sides are exercising or at least trying to exercise their own religious liberty and each side is against the opposing side. 

While I support the baker's right to not make a cake for a gay couple (or any couple), I fundamentally disagree with it as a matter of religious liberty.

But, if you are going to claim that businesses can choose to not serve people as a matter of religious liberty, than both sides are exercising their religious liberty.

You claim that the companies are taking a side against religious liberty because they are opposed to the legislation.  But it is their beliefs and values that prompt them to oppose the legislation and act accordingly.  If they were prevented from acting the way they did, than their religious liberty would have been hindered.  See the problem?

You want to claim that a bakery denying service is a matter of religious liberty while also claiming that the NCAA's denial of service is denying the religious liberty of someone else.  How can that be?

You're not applying the same standard to the two business entities:  the bakery and the NCAA.  If one can deny service as a matter of religious liberty than the other can as well.

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

While I support the baker's right to not make a cake for a gay couple (or any couple), I fundamentally disagree with it as a matter of religious liberty.

But, if you are going to claim that businesses can choose to not serve people as a matter of religious liberty, than both sides are exercising their religious liberty.

You claim that the companies are taking a side against religious liberty because they are opposed to the legislation.  But it is their beliefs and values that prompt them to oppose the legislation and act accordingly.  If they were prevented from acting the way they did, than their religious liberty would have been hindered.  See the problem?

You want to claim that a bakery denying service is a matter of religious liberty while also claiming that the NCAA's denial of service is denying the religious liberty of someone else.  How can that be?

You're not applying the same standard to the two business entities:  the bakery and the NCAA.  If one can deny service as a matter of religious liberty than the other can as well.

I think you should read what I said in my last post to you,  again.

Both sides are exercising or at least trying to exercise their religious liberty but each side is against the other side's exercise or attempt to exercise their own religious liberty.

Ergo (I like the sound of that word, maybe I'll use it more often)... as I was saying, ergo both sides are against their opposing side's religious liberty.

That's just what happens when people and companies choose to be on opposing sides.

And you are free to believe that has nothing at all to do with religious liberty, as far as I am concerned,  despite my opposition to that idea and stating it as a fact that it does. 

Ergo. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I think you should read what I said in my last post to you,  again.

Both sides are exercising or at least trying to exercise their religious liberty but each side is against the other side's exercise or attempt to exercise their own religious liberty.

Ergo (I like the sound of that word, maybe I'll use it more often)... as I was saying, ergo both sides are against their opposing side's religious liberty.

That's just what happens when people and companies choose to be on opposing sides.

And you are free to believe that has nothing at all to do with religious liberty, as far as I am concerned,  despite my opposition to that idea and stating it as a fact that it does. 

Ergo. 

I agree that, in this example, the bakery and the NCAA are on opposing sides.  But neither is against religious liberty.  

Edited April 20, 2016 by rockpond

[Freedom]

12 hours ago, Ahab said:

The principle of the thing.  That's why.  What if money was not a factor and a gay "couple" asked you to bake them a wedding cake for their "wedding"?

Ih nevermind. You'd probably just make it anyway out of the "goodness" of your own heart, even if they would not be paying you any money.  You'd likely do ANYTHING anyone ever asked you to do for them, regardless if whether or not you were promoting something you thought was evil, just so everyone you served would think you are a very nice guy and want to be exactly like you.

I, on the other hand, will not go out of my way to do anything that I think might give someone the idea that I agree with what they are doing when they are doing something that I think is wrong, and I certainly would never actively participate in helping someone to do what I think is wrong either.

That sort of limits your options. No professional sports, no movies, no mass produced products, no pharmaceuticals. The world is an imperfect place filled with imperfect people.  Baking two or three cakes a year is hardly endorsing a behavior. It is providing a service without passing judgement. 

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, Ahab said:

No, liberty belongs to all but liberty should be used only to choose/ do what is right and good.

Anything less is an abuse of that freedom. 

So said Lucifer.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

So said Lucifer.

No. Lucifer was and still is advocating that everyone do whatever they want while considering nothing to be evil, or that what is considered evil to one is considered to be good to another and therefore there is and should be no distinction between good and evil.  Thus eliminating any choice between one or the other since they both could be considered the same thing, just from different subjective perspectives.

What I am advocating is that we use our liberty only to choose what is right while realizing we also have the liberty to choose to do and believe what is wrong. And also considering CTW to be an abuse of our liberty.

CTR, not CTW, and not thinking that our choice doesn't make any difference either way.

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No. Lucifer was and still is advocating that everyone do whatever they want while considering nothing to be evil, or that what is considered evil to one is considered to be good to another and therefore there is and should be no distinction between good and evil.  Thus eliminating any choice between one or the other since they both could be considered the same thing, just from different subjective perspectives.

What I am advocating is that we use our liberty only to choose what is right while realizing we also have the liberty to choose to do and believe what is wrong. And also considering CTW to be an abuse of our liberty.

CTR, not CTW, and not thinking that our choice doesn't make any difference either way.

Incorrect. Lucifer wanted to force everyone to be righteous. That none should be lost.

[Ahab]

26 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Incorrect. Lucifer wanted to force everyone to be righteous. That none should be lost.

Your use of the word "force" is misleading.  Lucifer would have simply considered everyone to be righteous based on his offering of himself as the Savior of this world, as long as everyone acknowledged him as the one appointed to be our Savior. 

Pretty much the same line of thought most Christians have when thinking that they are made righteous through the atonement of our Savior.

[thesometimesaint]

43 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Your use of the word "force" is misleading.  Lucifer would have simply considered everyone to be righteous based on his offering of himself as the Savior of this world, as long as everyone acknowledged him as the one appointed to be our Savior. 

Pretty much the same line of thought most Christians have when thinking that they are made righteous through the atonement of our Savior.

Incorrect.

SEE https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/03/satans-rebellion?lang=eng

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Incorrect.

SEE https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/03/satans-rebellion?lang=eng

You misunderstood.  I was talking about what is referred to as the 2nd possibility President Clark was talking about

I suggest you read that article again while also considering what I was saying again.

[USU78]

17 hours ago, Freedom said:

That sort of limits your options. No professional sports, no movies, no mass produced products, no pharmaceuticals. The world is an imperfect place filled with imperfect people.  Baking two or three cakes a year is hardly endorsing a behavior. It is providing a service without passing judgement. 

Also sprach M. Vidkun Quisling.

Godwin's Law, poster removed.

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, Freedom said:

That sort of limits your options. No professional sports, no movies, no mass produced products, no pharmaceuticals. The world is an imperfect place filled with imperfect people.  Baking two or three cakes a year is hardly endorsing a behavior. It is providing a service without passing judgement. 

No, and after thinking about it some more still No. Not a valid conclusion.   Or at least I still enjoy movies depicting good vs evil where the good guys always come out on the top, and many mass produced products,  and some pharmaceuticals too.  Never really been much of a sports guy, though,  except for a few versions of golf and tennis when I am the one playing.  And maybe horseshoes too, sometimes.  And riding 4 wheelers, if that can be considered a sport.  And maybe a few other things that are or could be called sports.

Oh, and I also making some judgements against doing anything that shows I am in favor of helping people to do anything that really is not good for them to be doing, regardless of whether you do or don't mind being complicit in their evil activities. 

Edited April 20, 2016 by Ahab

[Russell C McGregor]

On ‎19‎/‎04‎/‎2016 at 5:33 AM, thesometimesaint said:

You are still subject to the law. Your business can be sued out of existence.

And you clearly approve.

People who refuse to support "same sex weddings" don't deserve to have a livelihood.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Incorrect. Lucifer wanted to force everyone to be righteous. That none should be lost.

That's a popular misconception. Lucifer offered to guarantee that none should be lost by seeking to "destroy the agency of man," i.e. by making righteousness irrelevant.

 

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

And you clearly approve.

People who refuse to support "same sex weddings" don't deserve to have a livelihood.

 

??????? Are you serious?

[rockpond]

On 4/12/2016 at 4:34 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I know that some here see red whenever the topic of religious freedom is brought up, and I know that some here like to pretend there is no current threat to religious freedom and demand to be shown examples whenever the topic is mentioned and then they get irritated when such examples are forthcoming. But such denial is the very reason to remain vigilant and to keep the issue before the public eye, despite the annoyance it causes to some.

In the interest of providing examples, here is a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece about how efforts to pass legislation to safeguard religious liberty in the wake of Obergefell are being hindered, in some instances, by corporations. In the long run, they do so arguably to their own detriment, as such politically correct tyranny is harmful to the economic enviroment.

This topic is relevant to this board as the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ have staked out a position in favor of assertive efforts to safeguard religious liberty. It is thus incumbent upon faithful members individually to lend their support to that effort.

Here's an interesting snippet from the WSJ piece with a local (LDS related) note of interest:

Here's a more general but noteworthy snippet:

 

A counterpoint to the WSJ op-ed:

https://baptistnews.com/2016/04/19/when-religious-liberty-demands-cease-to-be-legitimate/

Her closing thoughts (though some of it won't make sense if you don't read the op-ed...

Quote

Religious freedom is just that: freedom. Note that we don’t call it “religious comfort.” In other words, yes, government should protect my right to practice my religion, but it’s not society’s obligation to make that practice easy or carefree. If your faith prevents you from sitting on an airplane next to a woman who isn’t your wife, then move to another seat. If your faith tells you you can’t go to the same bathroom with some people, then figure out how to order your life so that you use the bathroom in a place that seems appropriate for you. If your faith tells you you can’t sell wedding cakes to certain people, don’t go into the business of selling wedding cakes.

I’m a Baptist; I’m all for religious liberty. Many of my religious forebears have died to defend it, in fact. But the behavior I saw on the plane last week was not a legitimate demand for religious liberty, and neither are laws dictating where people can use the bathroom and whom I can refuse to serve in my business. All of those claims, in fact, make a mockery of the sacrifice of so many by twisting the ideals of religious liberty and using them to discriminate against others.

Faith requires sacrifice. And, frankly, if our faith causes us to feel so much conviction about the issues confronting us, then perhaps we should find a way to manage the inconvenience of making that sacrifice instead of trampling the rights of others.

Seriously.