Is one worse than the other

[We Never Know]

As long as you practice all your religious beliefs and do not exclude any of your practices beliefs then you do not have to comply to any nation's standards or laws; however, if you make even one exception to your religious beliefs then you need to follow all standards and laws for the world you live in in my opinion. Fyi, the nation you live in my take offense at what you do and incarcerate or kill you to protect their laws, but you are living for a higher calling and will be rewarded in the afterlife.

You're preaching to the wrong person. I'm not religious.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is too simple.

That is too complex, because I am always right and you are always wrong, as that it is the only relvent philosophy system and doesn't allow for you to be right, thus your post is wrong. There is only one version of right and that is mine.
So I don't have to even consider that you are right, because that is too complex as you are always wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is too complex, because I am always right and you are always wrong, as that it is the only relvent philosophy system and doesn't allow for you to be right, thus your post is wrong. There is only one version of right and that is mine.
So I don't have to even consider that you are right, because that is too complex as you are always wrong.

While not on the right, I am right about rightfully righting wrongs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

While not on the right, I am right about rightfully righting wrongs.

No, that is not useful and too many letters. The correct sentence with fewer words and being useful would be: "I am wrong." I decide useful and you don't. There is no comprise needed, because I am right and you are wrong.
Remeber I am the correct and useful I and you are not even an I, since I am the standard of useful.
Everything starts and end with my personal philosophy.

So here is the correct crop:

I am wrong.

The rest is useless.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, that is not useful...

Righting wrongs is useless?
Oh, you're a real meanie!

 

[metis]

Say you are strictly religious and hold strong to your beliefs, should you...

-be able to deny doing things for others that go against your religious beliefs?
-be forced to do things for others that go against your religious beliefs?

It seems someone loses and will be offended either way.

If one has a business of serving the public, then maybe just serve the public and keep politics out of it.

 

[bobhikes]

You're preaching to the wrong person. I'm not religious.

I'm not religious either but that would be my answer to the OP. It's not a yes or no but a commitment level in my opinion that allows them to deny services and such. If you truly are a believer and follow all the requirements for your cause then you should not be obligated to break them, but once you deviate from any requirements you now have to accept others deviations. In my experience I have yet to meet a religious person that has not made exceptions to their own cause's rules.

 

[Ella S.]

There's a bit of inadvertent humor there, your offering
me an English lesson when you made three mistakes in
your attempted definition.

You're not worth correcting typos over. The definition stands.

And in your then expressing bigotry against (all) capitalists.

Nuance indeed!

But did you deliberately overlook that far from
speaking of all socialists, I limited my comments to ( all )
extremist socialits?

Interesting how you interpret my comment as an attack against all capitalists, yet you don't see how branding "anti-capitalism" as a bigotry is an attack against all socialists.

And you did exactly as I described them, with
the things you made up to criticize about me.

Delusion.

And just to add chocolate sprinkles on the dish,
your post, demonstrating with example, the bigotry I spoke of,

And rather than address the subject of my post you went for personal attack.

I addressed your post. Personal attacks are against the rules, so I did not give one. I did attack the lack of nuance in your post, though.

Withal, I couldn't have asked for a more suitable response.
Good one!

There's a saying I once heard about playing chess with pigeons...

 

[Heyo]

Interesting how you interpret my comment as an attack against all capitalists, yet you don't see how branding "anti-capitalism" as a bigotry is an attack against all socialists.

... and not only those. I'm not a socialist, but people who can only think binary automatically think I have to be as I criticise capitalism.

 

[Ella S.]

... and not only those. I'm not a socialist, but people who can only think binary automatically think I have to be as I criticise capitalism.

Yes, precisely. I am also not a socialist, despite being anti-capitalist, since I consider myself to be post-left. That's an even deeper layer of nuance being overlooked that I didn't feel like bringing into it, but it was on my mind this whole time and I'm glad you pointed it out for me.