Public accomondation

2,453 Views | 53 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by AstroAg17
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Freedom of religion is not restricted to Christianity; or even to any government-sanctioned version of Christianity.

Yes, religion is completely subjective; however, there is a Constitutional Amendment enshrining this Freedom in the United States.

There is no Constitutional Amendment enshrining anyone's right to not be discriminated against by others for what they do or how they are perceived.

It appears that you are trying to show some sort of equivalency between someone's sexuality and their religion.

There is some equivalence in that both are subjective and both are largely indicated by what one does and is not objectively inherent in what they are.
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Maybe someday we can revisit this conversation is technology can ever find some genetic marker for a tendency towards homosexuality.


We can't even agree on who is male and female now and you think we are going to find that?
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I propose a new rule. This subject can only be talked about in the context of using mother****ers as the case use. It is SO much more fun to read.
Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

There is no Constitutional Amendment enshrining anyone's right to not be discriminated against by others for what they do or how they are perceived.
As I'm sure you know the Constitution isn't a document about what one group of people can or can't do to another group. It is a document to protect the people from their government.
The 14th Amendment is probably the best documentation that a state can't discriminate against anyone. But it doesn't really say anything about what one group of people can or can't do to another.
Quote:

14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Yes, religion is completely subjective; however, there is a Constitutional Amendment enshrining this Freedom in the United States.

There is no Constitutional Amendment enshrining anyone's right to not be discriminated against by others for what they do or how they are perceived.

The 1st amendment doesn't apply to private business. And the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. The state is barred from violating either, which would prohibit discriminatory practices by the state.

Neither of these, though, apply to the private sector.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Oops, you beat me to it.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
swimmerbabe11 said:

I propose a new rule. This subject can only be talked about in the context of using mother****ers as the case use. It is SO much more fun to read.

Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Following up on another point:
Quote:

It appears that you are trying to show some sort of equivalency between someone's sexuality and their religion.

There is some equivalence in that both are subjective and both are largely indicated by what one does and is not objectively inherent in what they are.
You were arguing that sexuality was subjective and also irrelevant, I was trying to point out that by the same logic so is religion. So if we assume both are irrelevant what we have is a baker refusing to perform a service for another person because of who they are. On it's face maybe we can agree that is wrong. And we've been having a good conversation on if the government should be involved or not.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

There is some equivalence in that both are subjective and both are largely indicated by what one does and is not objectively inherent in what they are.
There is a choice in faith. I can choose to embrace Christ or reject Him. There isn't choice in attraction. There is choice in acting on that attraction, though.

Then again, you could argue that even with faith, there's an element that's inherent in what we are given that we all bear God's image.
Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Going back to the First Ammendment:
Quote:

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.
Over the years since this was written there has been a lot written about the limits to the right to free speach and press. For example, we all know you can't yell fire in a crowded place because it dangerous to everyone else. Also, we all know that you can't advocate the use of force at a specific time. So you might be able to say "We should round up and kill all blue eyed people" but you can't say "let's round them all up next Tuesday."

I'm not aware of such commonly understood limits on freedom of religion. If there is a bunch of writing on these limits, then the layman (me) isn't aware. Hopefully, we can agree that defending a religion's right to human sacrifice is ridiculous. Does the freedom of religion extend to the right to discriminate against people your version of religion says are bad?
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Your religious freedom ends where someone else's rights begin.

Everyone having the right to life means your religious rights do not include the right to kill someone else. Same with theft. Same with any other way of violating someone elses rights.

If I open a business, you do not have a "right" to be my customer or for me to serve you.

The USC defends you from being descriminated against by the government. Not the private sector.

Now state and local laws can be made, but it is not a constitutional issue.
7nine
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PacifistAg said:


Quote:

There is some equivalence in that both are subjective and both are largely indicated by what one does and is not objectively inherent in what they are.
There is a choice in faith. I can choose to embrace Christ or reject Him. There isn't choice in attraction. There is choice in acting on that attraction, though.

Then again, you could argue that even with faith, there's an element that's inherent in what we are given that we all bear God's image.


I don't mean this in an insulting or condescending manner: I think that's a very simplistic definition of attraction. It's not even anecdotally supportable.

Attraction changes normally over the course of your life. I would hope you're not still attracted to middle school girls like you were in 7th grade. I know I'm not. As men age many are attracted to older women or women with different body shapes than previously (because women's bodies change with children and age). Not many middle schoolers that I was aware of would attracted to a mother of two or three who gained some weight, but an older man would be. I would not trade my wife of ten years for my wife of five or even one. Those women are not as attractive to me as who she is now.

Women are also more open with experimentation when younger but gravitate one way or the other eventually (most being hetero).

Porn and tech are another example. If you choose to watch home videos on YouTube of half naked children in Brazil endlessly (see the NYT article on how youtube's AI is leading people down this path) or CP you can absolutely change what you're attracted to based on what you're watching. Eventually you'll wind up addicted to a screen though, in the grossest of ironies (porn induced ED I believe they're calling it).

Childhood trauma can also shape attraction, as many pedo victims struggle with it going forward.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PacifistAg said:

Quote:

Yes, religion is completely subjective; however, there is a Constitutional Amendment enshrining this Freedom in the United States.

There is no Constitutional Amendment enshrining anyone's right to not be discriminated against by others for what they do or how they are perceived.

The 1st amendment doesn't apply to private business. And the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. The state is barred from violating either, which would prohibit discriminatory practices by the state.

Neither of these, though, apply to the private sector.
No, but the laws forcing business owners to violate their sincerely held beliefs ARE from the government.

Government has no business telling the owner to "bake the cake", or "rent the building", or "arrange the flowers", etc...
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dad-O-Lot said:

PacifistAg said:

Quote:

Yes, religion is completely subjective; however, there is a Constitutional Amendment enshrining this Freedom in the United States.

There is no Constitutional Amendment enshrining anyone's right to not be discriminated against by others for what they do or how they are perceived.

The 1st amendment doesn't apply to private business. And the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. The state is barred from violating either, which would prohibit discriminatory practices by the state.

Neither of these, though, apply to the private sector.
No, but the laws forcing business owners to violate their sincerely held beliefs ARE from the government.

Government has no business telling the owner to "bake the cake", or "rent the building", or "arrange the flowers", etc...
As I've stated multiple times, I'm opposed to such laws. Government has no business telling them to "bake the cake". Government has no business telling a person they can't use heroin. If a private business said "no cops allowed" or "no Christians allowed", they should be free to do so. A business should be free to prohibit guns, without some convoluted sign requirement, on their property as well.
BlackGoldAg2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So I realize this is slightly off topic but a philosophical question for you: how does a private business or property effectively have that freedom to prohibit anyone or thing from their property without the threat of force from the state or an individual willing to enforce that "freedom"?
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BlackGoldAg2011 said:

So I realize this is slightly off topic but a philosophical question for you: how does a private business or property effectively have that freedom to prohibit anyone or thing from their property without the threat of force from the state or an individual willing to enforce that "freedom"?

Well, I can only speak for myself and how we have handled it in the past with regards to visitors in our home. We make our position clear and expect people to be respectful of our property rights. If they refuse, then we engage in a conversation to 1) further explain our position and 2) try to gain understanding of their refusal. If they continue to refuse, then we ask them to leave and make it clear they're not welcome back onto our property until they can respect said property. If they refuse to leave, then we deal with it until they do. No rights are worth killing for, or even threatening to kill for.

I find being calm, respectful, and kind about it is effective. Sometimes it may not produce the desired result, but I won't let my failure to convincingly articulate our position to be used as a justification for a call to violence. At the end of the day, if they won't respect our property rights, that says far more about them than anything, but calls for violence will only fracture a relationship and drive us further apart.

That's just my take on it.
Post removed:
by user
Post removed:
by user
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's really just choosing words and reason over the unimaginative recourse to violence. But, I also expect many here will roll their eyes or mock. And that's fine. I'm not looking for approval, but to operate consistently as my conscience guides me.

For all the predictions that we'd be taken advantage of, or worse, in all these years it's not happened. I believe it's because most people, no matter how much they may disagree, struggle to respond to good with evil. They may call names, but most don't steal or abuse because they know it's wrong, not because there's a law or threat of violence. Many will call it naive, and that's fine. They can choose a different way for themselves.
Post removed:
by user
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.