Religious Freedom Bill passed in Missisippi.

[Sunstone]

This talk of protecting one's right to not engage in behavior one deems unethical seems to ignore the fact that the government has a right -- when it can show a compelling interest -- to deny us certain behaviors and impose others upon us. Consequently, the real issue here would appear to be whether government has a compelling interest in this case.

 

[Mycroft]

A jew walks into a shop.

'Sorry I am not serving you'

Why?

'Because you're Jewish'.

So?

'I am a Muslim. I don't serve Jews.'


How long do you think it would be before there'd be an outcry? Do you think that the American Government would pass a law allowing Muslims to decline service to Jews because the Jewish religion offends said Muslims?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm really glad that I have the *privilege* of applying for conscientious objector status being that I am a pacifist. However if you want to put me in jail for refusing to participate in war be my guest. I won't engage in unethical behavior plain and simple no matter what.

Now you say, "that's not the same thing at all!"

Why should conscientious objector status be based on religion? Why shouldn't the law just ve based on whether a person's pacifism is sincere and deeply held? Do you think you should be entitled to greater protection than someone who is a pacifist for non-religious reasons?

 

[Mycroft]

I don't know what you mean about there being no evidence about a law and biblical text, or your references to Jesus. That is not included in the language of the law at all.

What I mean is nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that followers of Christ take offense at someone being homosexual and discriminate against them refusing them services or goods. Nowhere in the bible does it even suggest having homosexual inclinations or thoughts is even a sin, only that the comitting an act of homosexuality is a sin.

I agree with you, something has to give. If this is what American rights does to people, then the idea behind these rights needs to be re-examined. But I would say that while someone of faith has a right to be offended by homosexuality (or anyone else), they should also be told to just grow up and deal with it when they have to serve such a person.

 

[nazz]

This talk of protecting one's right to not engage in behavior one deems unethical seems to ignore the fact that the government has a right -- when it can show a compelling interest -- to deny us certain behaviors and impose others upon us. Consequently, the real issue here would appear to be whether government has a compelling interest in this case.

Yeah, not sure I would agree with that policy.

 

[nazz]

Why should conscientious objector status be based on religion? Why shouldn't the law just ve based on whether a person's pacifism is sincere and deeply held? Do you think you should be entitled to greater protection than someone who is a pacifist for non-religious reasons?

No, I don't. but unfortunately that is how our system works here.

 

[nazz]

A jew walks into a shop.

'Sorry I am not serving you'

Why?

'Because you're Jewish'.

So?

'I am a Muslim. I don't serve Jews.'


How long do you think it would be before there'd be an outcry? Do you think that the American Government would pass a law allowing Muslims to decline service to Jews because the Jewish religion offends said Muslims?

There is no such thing in Islam as that. Moot point.

 

[4consideration]

This talk of protecting one's right to not engage in behavior one deems unethical seems to ignore the fact that the government has a right -- when it can show a compelling interest -- to deny us certain behaviors and impose others upon us.

I don't think so. I don't think it ignores that at all.

I think the whole point of talking about protecting rights in this case is to admit, acknowledge and address that in the process of the government taking action, whether prohibiting or compelling action, it is important that laws be implemented in order that the rights of one individual or group are upheld, without unduly burdening or oppressing another individual or group.

Otherwise, if we make a practice of leaving out the issue of the greatest amount of fairness for all in laws, and only support like-minded, or specific groups, I think we're likely to have a series of what I think of as revenge laws. What I mean by that is laws whose effect is to correct one ill in society, by punishing a group seen as opposing that group. That's a good way to have a never-ending series of turmoil on the issues, IMO.

Consequently, the real issue here would appear to be whether government has a compelling interest in this case.

This is an issue. What do you think?

 

[idav]

A jew walks into a shop.

'Sorry I am not serving you'

Why?

'Because you're Jewish'.

So?

'I am a Muslim. I don't serve Jews.'


How long do you think it would be before there'd be an outcry? Do you think that the American Government would pass a law allowing Muslims to decline service to Jews because the Jewish religion offends said Muslims?

I want to see what happens when a homosexual claims rights being violated when their lifestyle should be protected because the great goddess says so. I want to see whose religious rights get protected when both are violated. It becomes the same thing, both parties trying to push their opinion, religion shouldn't matter and only complicates matters.

 

[idav]

I think the whole point of talking about protecting rights in this case is to admit, acknowledge and address that in the process of the government taking action, whether prohibiting or compelling action, it is important that laws be implemented in order that the rights of one individual or group are upheld, without unduly burdening or oppressing another individual or group.

This should go without saying or needing to write a law. One shouldn't need religious protection for lawsuits to be fair.

 

[nazz]

What I mean is nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that followers of Christ take offense at someone being homosexual and discriminate against them refusing them services or goods. Nowhere in the bible does it even suggest having homosexual inclinations or thoughts is even a sin, only that the comitting an act of homosexuality is a sin.

First off, that is not even Christian teaching (even if you hear Christians say that). Jesus is quite clear that if one lusts after a (married) woman one has committed adultery in one's heart. Therefore by extension, if homosexual behavior is a sin then so are thoughts about homosexual activity.

Second the Christian Bible makes it clear that not only should one avoid sin one should not approve of others engaging in it (Rom 1:32). Now, is it beyond you to understand that providing goods/services for a same sex wedding would fall into that category for those who believe homosexuality to be a sin?

This is the ONLY issue that has come up. To my knowledge no one has refused gays service for being gay nor has anyone suggesting legal protection for such discrimination. That, and that alone, is the issue this legislation tries to address.

Stop making this about something it is not.

 

[4consideration]

What I mean is nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that followers of Christ take offense at someone being homosexual and discriminate against them refusing them services or goods. Nowhere in the bible does it even suggest having homosexual inclinations or thoughts is even a sin, only that the comitting an act of homosexuality is a sin.

I agree with you, something has to give. If this is what American rights does to people, then the idea behind these rights needs to be re-examined. But I would say that while someone of faith has a right to be offended by homosexuality (or anyone else), they should also be told to just grow up and deal with it when they have to serve such a person.

I don't believe the Bible, or Jesus, supports discriminating against homosexuals, either.

I'm not talking about the Bible. I'm talking about the law.

I read the text. It says nothing about Christianity, homosexuality or anything of that sort.

There is nothing in that law that I can find that says the person referring to that law will be Christian. A Muslim, Jewish person, or anyone of any religion may end up using that law as a defense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This talk of protecting one's right to not engage in behavior one deems unethical seems to ignore the fact that the government has a right -- when it can show a compelling interest -- to deny us certain behaviors and impose others upon us. Consequently, the real issue here would appear to be whether government has a compelling interest in this case.

It also ignores the fact that choosing a particular job and owning a particular business are largely voluntary activities. If a person doesn't want to dispense contraceptives or be involved in a same-sex wedding, there are almost limitless career and business options where you will never be asked to do these things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I don't. but unfortunately that is how our system works here.

Where's "here"? It does work that way in Canada and the US.

 

[Sunstone]

I
This is an issue. What do you think?

I think society has compelling reasons to ensure that people are not discriminated against on the basis of such things as sex, religion, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, and so forth. Allowing people to be discriminated against on the basis of those things has a long history of turning them into outcasts and scapegoats. It also has a long history of violence associated with it. None of that is conducive to a civil and orderly society. So, even putting aside fairness and morality for a moment, there would appear to be compelling reasons to ensure that people are not discriminated against on the basis of those things. Or should we grant homosexuals, etc, immunity from taxes since the government doesn't want to provide them with the service of protecting them?

 

[nazz]

I want to see what happens when a homosexual claims rights being violated when their lifestyle should be protected because the great goddess says so. I want to see whose religious rights get protected when both are violated. It becomes the same thing, both parties trying to push their opinion, religion shouldn't matter and only complicates matters.

I want to see what happens when a gay florist refuses to provide flowers to the Westboro Baptist Church. I bet we won't hear any squawking then.

 

[nazz]

Where's "here"? It does work that way in Canada and the US.

It does? I was not aware of that. I'm pretty sure CO status is only granted for religious reasons. But I could be wrong.

 

[nazz]

It also ignores the fact that choosing a particular job and owning a particular business are largely voluntary activities. If a person doesn't want to dispense contraceptives or be involved in a same-sex wedding, there are almost limitless career and business options where you will never be asked to do these things.

And you think it is fair to limit people's career options in this way thus not granting them the same rights as others. This says it all right there.

 

[Sunstone]

I want to see what happens when a gay florist refuses to provide flowers to the Westboro Baptist Church. I bet we won't hear any squawking then.

Depends on what basis the florist refuses to provide flowers, doesn't it? If on the basis of their being Christians, that would violate their civil rights, no?

 

[idav]

I want to see what happens when a gay florist refuses to provide flowers to the Westboro Baptist Church. I bet we won't hear any squawking then.

Whatever the case, the offended should take it to court.

I hate being treated like crap at stores, drives me nuts and they are worse with my wife, I don't know why but race is my suspicion.

edit: and to note it ain't usually owners doing the harassing