rockpond Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Ahab said: And apparently you think as they do now. No. I chose to work for those companies because their values aligned with mine.
bcuzbcuz Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Living outside the U.S., you perhaps don't have the reverence for First Amendment freedoms that we do here. Or at least that some of us (hopefully still a majority) have. Reverence? You're right. I don't have any particular reverence for the 1st amendment. I can and do read, however. Your first amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." I respectfully submit that nothing in the first amendment can be interpretted as a license to refuse service to anyone, regardless of skin colour, religion, gender or sexual inclination. It amuses me, however, that people can even imply that another persons skin colour, no, sorry, that someone elses sexual behaviours, would infringe upon their religion or worship. Explain it to me, like you would to a five year old. Suppose I was a five year old that enjoyed torturing his cat. Would that infringe upon your religious rights? Suppose I was five year old whose Mom had moved out and whose Dad moved in with his new boyfriend. How would that infringe upon your religious freedoms? Again, keep it simple. Use small words and tell it slowly so I can understand. 2
Ahab Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 49 minutes ago, rockpond said: No. I chose to work for those companies because their values aligned with mine. Ah yes, as I should have suspected. Was your job in PR, per chance?
Jeanne Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: The backlash against religious freedom is created because of the absurd laws passed by states like Tennessee, naming the Bible the official State book, or Mississippi allowing for individuals and businesses to discriminate in employment, service and housing for LGBT individuals. Of course we also have the North Carolina law that is also openly declaring it legal to discriminate against LGBT based on deeply held principles or religious beliefs. As long governments subjugate a population like the LGBT community to second class status, all in the name of "religious freedom" there will be push back. The pendulum swings. Really...The Bible as State book?
rockpond Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 13 minutes ago, Ahab said: Ah yes, as I should have suspected. Was your job in PR, per chance? Not even close. Do you have a point to make with this ad hominem tangent?
Ahab Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: Not even close. Do you have a point to make with this ad hominem tangent? What's ad hominem about what I was saying? Just trying to give credit to whom it is due.
rockpond Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 29 minutes ago, Ahab said: What's ad hominem about what I was saying? Just trying to give credit to whom it is due. No need to be coy. You directed the discussion to focus on me rather than the issue at hand. 1
Ahab Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 14 minutes ago, rockpond said: No need to be coy. You directed the discussion to focus on me rather than the issue at hand. You said you worked for companies that had the same values you have. I thought that maybe you had adopted their values but you later indicated that you had already had the same values, so I thought maybe you had helped them to accept and promote those values that you had in common. Companies are composed of people, just like corporations and yes even churches are composed of people. People who share and learn and teach the things that various people in those organizations accept. It's not like any idea or policy or law comes from out of the blue, out of thin air, from nobody or nothing. I think it's weird that you would use the term ad hominem for me pointing out that you played a part in the values of those companies that you were once a part of, that you once worked for. Just own it already. You've already admitted that those companies have some of the same values you have, and I don't think of you as someone who thinks you have done something wrong. You still haven't explained why you used the term ad hominem. What do you think you should be ashamed of?
rockpond Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 4 minutes ago, Ahab said: You said you worked for companies that had the same values you have. I thought that maybe you had adopted their values but you later indicated that you had already had the same values, so I thought maybe you had helped them to accept and promote those values that you had in common. Companies are composed of people, just like corporations and yes even churches are composed of people. People who share and learn and teach the things that various people in those organizations accept. It's not like any idea or policy or law comes from out of the blue, out of thin air, from nobody or nothing. I think it's weird that you would use the term ad hominem for me pointing out that you played a part in the values of those companies that you were once a part of, that you once worked for. Just own it already. You've already admitted that those companies have some of the same values you have, and I don't think of you as someone who thinks you have done something wrong. You still haven't explained why you used the term ad hominem. What do you think you should be ashamed of? I'm not ashamed of anything. An ad hominem is an argument or reaction directed at the person rather than the position they are taking. Your comments felt to me like you were doing that. Rather than discussing the issue, you hinted that I was influenced by my employing company. When I explained that wasn't the case, you asked if I was in PR. Nothing to do with the matter at hand. In the company that I worked for right out of college, I doubt that I had any influence on their values as I was just one in 80,000 employees. So is there a problem with Disney or the NCAA saying that they won't do business in a state that adopts legislation which violates their organization's values?
Ahab Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 15 minutes ago, rockpond said: So is there a problem with Disney or the NCAA saying that they won't do business in a state that adopts legislation which violates their organization's values? I don't think so, as long as it works both ways, for every company/ corporation/ individual person. Much better for them or anyone else to just not do business with another party with an opposing value than to take that other party to court just because they won't do business with them.
rockpond Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 13 minutes ago, Ahab said: I don't think so, as long as it works both ways, for every company/ corporation/ individual person. Much better for them or anyone else to just not do business with another party with an opposing value than to take that other party to court just because they won't do business with them. Exactly. And that's my issue with the article quoted in Scott's OP. The author is in favor of businesses being able to refuse service to LGBTQ individuals but seems to feel it is a bad thing for AMC to refuse to do business with the state. That strikes me as an odd position to stake out. And since Scott said that it is incumbent upon me to support the leaders' position on religious freedom, I don't believe that the author of the op-ed is truly supportive of religious freedom. 2
Ahab Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 22 minutes ago, rockpond said: Exactly. And that's my issue with the article quoted in Scott's OP. The author is in favor of businesses being able to refuse service to LGBTQ individuals but seems to feel it is a bad thing for AMC to refuse to do business with the state. That strikes me as an odd position to stake out. And since Scott said that it is incumbent upon me to support the leaders' position on religious freedom, I don't believe that the author of the op-ed is truly supportive of religious freedom. Oh wait! We agree? Maybe I should clarify what I said, a little. It may well indeed cause some problems when people/ companies just don't get along, choosing not to do business with each other because of some clash in values, but I think those problems should be allowed and tolerated rather than one party trying to get the other party to bend to their will to do business. In the final analysis, I think, business is all about providing or not providing a particular service to someone else, sometimes for money and sometimes just for the sheer joy in serving someone in some way. Doing something for someone else that maybe they cannot do by themselves. Maybe even serving in some way that nobody else can do in a particular way. But it should always be the choice of the service provider to choose whether or not to serve, in each and every instance. Otherwise providing services to others becomes a compulsory act and too much like slavery to suit me.
rockpond Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 46 minutes ago, Ahab said: Oh wait! We agree? Maybe I should clarify what I said, a little. It may well indeed cause some problems when people/ companies just don't get along, choosing not to do business with each other because of some clash in values, but I think those problems should be allowed and tolerated rather than one party trying to get the other party to bend to their will to do business. In the final analysis, I think, business is all about providing or not providing a particular service to someone else, sometimes for money and sometimes just for the sheer joy in serving someone in some way. Doing something for someone else that maybe they cannot do by themselves. Maybe even serving in some way that nobody else can do in a particular way. But it should always be the choice of the service provider to choose whether or not to serve, in each and every instance. Otherwise providing services to others becomes a compulsory act and too much like slavery to suit me. Yes, we agree. 1
carbon dioxide Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 18 hours ago, california boy said: Most Americans are against discrimination. Not hard to understand. People are willing to stand up against those that want to turn back the clock when businesses were able to discriminate based on religious beliefs. They know how ugly and unChristlike that is. Sure there were more lunch counters available, but discrimination is wrong wherever it rears it's ugly head. Not when it comes to the bathroom. Men should go to their designated spots and the women to their designated spots. No switching teams because one thinks they are on the other team.
california boy Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 7 hours ago, Storm Rider said: I would like to know how the LGBTQ - and whatever else goes into that acronym today - has so much power over business. What lever do they have for such a small minority of our populace? Mormons obviously don't have this kind of power. Jews may have this kind of power, but only in certain fields if rumors are to be believed. Native Indians don't have this much power. Asians certainly don't have this much power. Blacks have this much power. It is interesting to study how this extremely small group became so powerful in the US. There are several books on the topic. The author I read is a lesbian and was dead center of this group; Tammy Bruce is very interesting reading. I have noticed several others. I find it rather deceitful to claim there is no correlation between religious liberty and LGBTQ rights. Religions have morals and doctrines that clearly define what is acceptable and what is immoral. Trying to sing Fa, La, La when it comes to religion and the gay agenda of cramming their specific moral standards down the throat of the American public beggars the imagination. I am not nearly as stupid as some would believe to swallow that bit of tripe and a majority of the American public feels the same way. You are so far of base that it is no wonder why you simply don't get it. What power does the LGBT community have? Simply this. Most Americans don't support discrimination. You don't have to be gay to hold that belief. Those that think discrimination is immoral. is not a small group. Maybe you should consider being a part of THAT group. Organized religion is loosing literally millions of members each and every year. When religion starts saying that it is ok to discriminate, it only moves people further away from that immoral message. 67% of the people leaving organized religion say that the reason is religion getting involved in politics. Odd as it is, most people don't think Christ taught a gospel of discrimination. Passing this discrimination laws attacking the LGBT community is the very thing these people are talking about. Mormonism is not immune to those leaving the church. And it is nonsense that the gay community is shoving anything down your throat. I haven't heard of a single instance where anyone was forced into a gay marriage. I haven't heard of a single instance where a gay person made anyone have sex with someone of the same gender. Have you? 3
carbon dioxide Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 1 hour ago, california boy said: Odd as it is, most people don't think Christ taught a gospel of discrimination. Well there is some types of discrimination in the Kingdom of God. Christ discriminates between the wheat and tares. The sheep and the goats. Christ does discriminate but not on trivial things like race or nationality but important things like what a person does or does not do.
california boy Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 7 hours ago, Anijen said: I never said this, I never implied this. This statement is a classic straw-man. You build a fake argument (that I believe we should appeal civil right laws) and then you attack that belief. Problem is I never, not once even came close to suggesting this. I think our civil right laws are fine. I agree Okay, I agree. I never said or implied differently. Whats your point? Okay, I agree. I never said or implied differently. Whats your point? Yes, wonderful, I am thankful for them. The Free Exercise and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been around for 227 years. Little by little it has been chipped away at. This chipping has opened the doors that have been shut many times over 227 years. Laws that compel the forced morality of a believing group, to go against their religious beliefs, in favor for another group with contrary beliefs, has set a dangerous precedent. This has made it allowable for beliefs to become superior to the law of the land, and in effect is to permit every same sex married couple to become citizens unto themselves. Court decisions that force people to capitulate their religious beliefs for another persons (SS couples) beliefs, in effect robs one group of people not only of their religious liberties, but of the liberty to govern themselves. The irony here is that through the political process one group can successfully undermine the political process of others. Justice Alito expressed the concern that the courts opinion would be used to attack the beliefs of those who disagree with same-sex marriage, who "will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools," leading to "bitter and lasting wounds. He was right. Seriously? This is what you wrote. Perhaps you forgot. Quote Being forced not to be racist (if we choose to be a racist), being forced by our own government to not be discriminatory is also wrong. Being a racist and being discriminatory is still legal today, well as far as speech, expression, symbolic, it is still legal. But it is slowly being carved out, now businesses can't choose their customers, their are no dram laws on morality, oops yes there are, they are starting to legislate our beliefs. Slowly but surely. The laws that require business to serve everyone are the civil rights laws. If you think business should be able to discriminate who they serve, then you will have to repeal the civil rights laws. Before those laws were enacted, a business could discriminate all they wanted to. Something you seem to be advocating in your above statement. 2
carbon dioxide Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 I guess the states could just ban the companies from their states. North Carolina could just block PayPal from going into North Carolina. After all, surely PayPal would not want to profit off the the people of North Carolina.
california boy Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 47 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Not when it comes to the bathroom. Men should go to their designated spots and the women to their designated spots. No switching teams because one thinks they are on the other team. I would like you to look at this YouTube video and honestly tell me which bathroom these people should go into. Love to have your thoughts on this.
Sky Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 I, for one, get nervous when I hear religious conservatives use the term "religious liberty." It seems to me that they lost the battle on same-sex marriage, so now this their new way to push back.. I'm presuming that if I "looked gay enough" to a restaurant owner in North Carolina, they could potentially turn me away from their premises. Or maybe for holding hands with another guy? Think what you want about the morality of gay relationships, but let's continue to serve every paying customer. Also, I don't see anything wrong with letting a transgender person use the gendered bathroom of how they identify. Religious liberty has to be balanced with basic civil rights and human dignity. Also telling to me is that all these "religious liberty" laws are coming out of the south, still a hotbed for racism to this day... 3
Russell C McGregor Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 13 hours ago, Gray said: "Religious freedom" is fast being intentionally misrepresented as "special rights for religious people to discriminate and/or ignore the law." Or sometimes, "religious people claiming their rights are being trampled because other people are exercising their own right to free speech." There. Fixed it for you. 2
bcuzbcuz Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 7 hours ago, california boy said: I would like you to look at this YouTube video and honestly tell me which bathroom these people should go into. Love to have your thoughts on this. An interesting video but no where near, IMO, as interesting as the many articles and a few good videos on YouTube about surgical gender assignment. Unfortunately, finding the few video gems about children who are born with no identifiable gender is not easy but they are there.. I'd post them if I knew how.
Anijen Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 10 hours ago, california boy said: The laws that require business to serve everyone are the civil rights laws. If you think business should be able to discriminate who they serve, then you will have to repeal the civil rights laws. Before those laws were enacted, a business could discriminate all they wanted to. Something you seem to be advocating in your above statement. I am not advocating discrimination and I am not for repealing civil rights laws. I guess by now I could say 1000 times my point I am trying to make, (but failing with you is); the government should not legislate how I should believe, how I should think, and how I should feel. And yes we should be able to choose our customers. I would not turn down any Native American, African American, any American, I will not refuse service to a gay man, a same sex couple, a woman, from service of my business. I am not a racist, I am not discriminatory, I am not homophobic, I just want the freedom to choose. I am opposed to government compelled morality. I am opposed to be forced to help fund abortion, I am opposed to forcing a baker to make a cake for a same sex couple, not because I am against same sex marriage, but because there are hundreds of other bakers willing to make the cake, and the very one who doesn't want to is because his religious beliefs disapprove of SS marriage. There have been many (many, many, many) First Amendment cases that allows the freedom of speech to discriminate, be offensive, to be a racist, to defile the flag, to protest the government, to even burn crosses. Discrimination is allowed under the First Amendment. Screech (sound of brakes)! Not so, fast, that very same First Amendment will not allow a man to discriminate and is forced to make a cake. Why? Well excellent question. Because The religious clauses (Establishment and Exercise clause) of that very same First Amendment is being whittled down and slowly eroded. Discrimination is well protected under speech, but when a baker wants to exercise a part of his religious beliefs, well then, STOP! The morality police steps in and fines a baker $135,000.00 for not making them a cake, when there were hundreds of other bakeries willing to do the job. This is what is called forced morality, the government is entangling itself in peoples religion by telling people well your religious beliefs are discriminatory and because we don't like that we are going to force you how to think and act. Oh and bytheway it is against the Constitution for the government to entangle themselves in any religious belief (ironically because it breaks the First Amendment), see Lemon v. Kurtzman which is still the holding opinion today. I seem to recall forced morality is what got the Son of the Morning Star Cast out. Oops, better not add that, a religious reference might get me fined. 1
Anijen Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, california boy said: The laws that require business to serve everyone are the civil rights laws. If you think business should be able to discriminate who they serve, then you will have to repeal the civil rights laws. Before those laws were enacted, a business could discriminate all they wanted to. Something you seem to be advocating in your above statement. I am not yet exhausted this theme. It is against the law for the government to discriminate (local, state, or federal). However, private business are still allowed in some areas to discriminate. Some examples of this are; the Koch brothers were found it was lawful to have political discrimination, telling 45,000 employees how an election should come out (if Obama wins, you'll are fired). A Wisconsin employer did the same thing, because in private practice some discrimination is allowed. In fact the Equality Act (2010) allows some discrimination that private businesses can do. I will repeat I hate discrimination and believe it to be wrong. How does this baker exercise his religious freedom when he is forced to make a cake that goes against his beliefs? "it is not meet to be commanded in all things," and "he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant." My religion teaches me that I choose the course I want to follow whether good or evil. It is my choice, my agency. I am not compelled to be either a racist or a religionist I can choose either. I hope you see why I find discrimination so repulsive. I find being forced to believe and act against my religious beliefs just as repulsive. Edited April 14, 2016 by Anijen
thesometimesaint Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 13 hours ago, Ahab said: Oh wait! We agree? Maybe I should clarify what I said, a little. It may well indeed cause some problems when people/ companies just don't get along, choosing not to do business with each other because of some clash in values, but I think those problems should be allowed and tolerated rather than one party trying to get the other party to bend to their will to do business. In the final analysis, I think, business is all about providing or not providing a particular service to someone else, sometimes for money and sometimes just for the sheer joy in serving someone in some way. Doing something for someone else that maybe they cannot do by themselves. Maybe even serving in some way that nobody else can do in a particular way. But it should always be the choice of the service provider to choose whether or not to serve, in each and every instance. Otherwise providing services to others becomes a compulsory act and too much like slavery to suit me. That is some of the most bizarre thinking I've ever read.
Recommended Posts