Religious Freedom Bill passed in Missisippi.

[Mycroft]

What? You just mentioned gay people will be forced to patronize non-discriminating businesses! That's what I, as a pork eater must do as well! Double standard!

But it doesnt demean them, nor does it make them 2nd class citizens.

I'm not entirely sure you grasp, fully, the concepts at work here?

 

[nazz]

But it doesnt demean them, nor does it make them 2nd class citizens.

I'm not entirely sure you grasp, fully, the concepts at work here?

I'm thoroughly convinced at this point that you do not.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm thoroughly convinced at this point that you do not.

Perhaps you missed my lengthy post on the previous page detailing why it's a bad idea?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I find it rather odd that some christian's and other abrahamic faiths have such a radical propensity to limit the resources to others that differ from there point of view. "Love your neighbor... Love your enemy..." Where does it say, ridicule and discriminate against those who sin? If we do, aren't we unwittingly denying the gift of forgiveness?

I have had two gay roommates and I never felt uncomfortable cohabitating with them. They understood that I was christian and at times openly talked about scripture. You see, love remembers no faults.

 

[Mycroft]

I find it rather odd that some christian's and other abrahamic faiths have such a radical propensity to limit the resources to others that differ from there point of view. "Love your neighbor... Love your enemy..." Where does it say, ridicule and discriminate against those who sin? If we do, aren't we unwittingly denying the gift of forgiveness?

I have had two gay roommates and I never felt uncomfortable cohabitating with them. They understood that I was christian and at times openly talked about scripture. You see, love remembers no faults.

Bravo, friend. As far as I can recall the office of a Christian is forgiveness, tolerance and understanding. I cannot imagine Jesus Christ prevening homosexual people from attending the Sermon on the Mount, for refusing to serve them bread and fish, etc. Quite the reverse, the bible shows us that he actively sought out such people.

Sadly while such people of religious are turning away LGBT customers, they have no right to call themselves christian (on the basis that to be a christian is to strive to be christ-like).

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Bravo, friend. As far as I can recall the office of a Christian is forgiveness, tolerance and understanding. I cannot imagine Jesus Christ prevening homosexual people from attending the Sermon on the Mount, for refusing to serve them bread and fish, etc. Quite the reverse, the bible shows us that he actively sought out such people.

Sadly while such people of religious are turning away LGBT customers, they have no right to call themselves christian (on the basis that to be a christian is to strive to be christ-like).

I can imagine Jesus doing that. Don't let the butter and bread get to you, Jesus would probably support most of these laws. Homosexuality is considered an affront against God unless the person was not participatin in it I see no reason in the context of the time that Jesus lived in and the religion he comes from for him to even consider it anything but a sin and to remove those who practiced it.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Well you're either free or you're not. You can't be 'a little bit free' or 'free here or not free there'. You're either all in or all out, otherwise it's all just a certain range of permitted behaviour. You also didn't answer my question.

Because the question was far out of left field. I'm saying there are degrees of freedom which is true.

We put those in place ourselves in order to assure our freedoms. Mind you I am free to marry another woman if I want, no one can stop me, however there certainly will be consequences for me doing so.

 

[4consideration]

The thing is. Where does it end? Once you give certain people (whoever they are) certain boons based on whatever, in this case religion, where will it go from there? Will religious people then want to decline services to people who have had an abortion? Or have wear mixed fibers? Or ate a quail? Etc. At some point there comes a point where you just have to say to these people: You know what? Just deal with it.

Where does it end? That is the question.

I think that when there are major changes, even changes that are good and needed, there is an expected period of time for balancing out the issues as they relate to all parties concerned. I expect this to be done through public opinion and through the court system.

What I see here is a law that attempts to establish a standard for what the state must show in cases where there is an issue of whether one should be forced by law to do something they say is against their religion.

Practically speaking, I do not think many people will suddenly change their business practices to exclude certain customers, because I think people are in the business of making money. Some people might. Some of those cases may end up in court. That's how it works.

Overall, I think the court of public opinion holds a lot of weight for businesses. I would expect some people to make publically unpopular choices, to become the subject of internet news stores, and for us to have discussions about those cases on RF. We'll have to see how the courts rule, and why.

Like Sunstone said, it's not in the best interest of Social Contract. And there's no supporting evidence that this should be in any way a law in Biblical text. I don't see Jesus getting upset about having to serve gay people? In fact the Bible shows that Jesus actively sought out such people instead. And I think that if your religion segregates or discriminates against other peopel for any reason, no matter what religion it is, then it should not be respected and people have the right to ignore it.

What if they wanted to deny Muslims service due to being blasphemers (believing in a different god)? Or atheists (for believing in no god)?

What if certain people wanted to deny black people service (religious liberty has been used to validate racism before).?

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.

Mississippi, I would imagine is predominantly Christian. However, this law does not mention anything about the Bible, and even if the law is only intended by those that passed it, to apply to Christians, as far as I can tell, it has equal applicability for anyone of any faith in court, because the actual wording of the law -- which is what is referred to in legal matters -- the word religion is used, without specific reference to any religion.

So...a Christian might try to use this law to justify not serving a Muslim. A Muslim might try to use this law to justify not serving a Christian. Anyone of any faith might try to use this law to not serve someone for some reason. It's possible.

On the issue of race, I'll go a step further and say that in the past, racism was not only justified using religion, but those with a mind-set to "shape society" and who personally objected to mixing of the races, used religion as a means of justifying passing laws legally requiring racial segregation -- and individual reference to one's own conscience on the matter was disallowed. It didn't matter if you didn't think it was right, you just had to deal with it.

While I am personally a supporter of our laws being and remaining secular in nature, those laws do also (IMO) need to take into consideration the reality of life for the people the laws affect.

What I mean there is that in a society where the majority of people consider themselves religious to some degree, and where their religion is an integral part of how and what they consider to be right action, I do not think society would do well to completely discount matters of conscience/religion and discourage the citizens from basing their own actions upon their own understanding of right action -- to become automatons and behave without reflection upon their own conscience, which is, at least IMO, associated with one's belief system.

Some people may act like jerks, IMO. I don't think that my personal disagreement, or lack of personal inclination toward some behavior, is a good basis for law. I support other people's rights to freedom of certain behaviors that I am not inclined toward at all, personally.

To me, the matter is how do we strike a balance in supporting the most personal freedom, while also protecting the rights of others -- ALL others. In the process of doing that, I think it necessary that we work out where the boundaries are from one person exercising a right -- and another person having a right infringed upon, by being legally forced to do something they believe to be wrong.

For example, because I hold a secular approach to our laws as being valuable, I think abortion should remain legal (up to a certain stage of development.) However, I think that society would be terribly remiss to force a person that believes life begins at conception to perform abortions, when those abortions can be performed by someone else, simply because society has decided that abortion is a right -- and therefore, a medically licensed individual does not have to right to refuse to perform them.

In that case, the just deal with it approach would, IMO, be taking an approach to legally forcing a person to do what they personally consider murder, just so someone who wants one is not denied access to it by that specific individual. To expect a person that really believes abortion is murder to just not believe what they believe, IMO, is as ineffective and unconscionable as telling a gay person to just don't be gay.

I think we can do better at supporting the rights of everyone. I think we need to work it out.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Wasn't there already a case where someone tried to use their religious beliefs as a way to not serve blacks and the courts shut that down?

Anyway rules like this for businesses reflect how more and more we are giving business rights like people.

 

[nazz]

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.

Mississippi, I would imagine is predominantly Christian. However, this law does not mention anything about the Bible, and even if the law is only intended by those that passed it, to apply to Christians, as far as I can tell, it has equal applicability for anyone of any faith in court, because the actual wording of the law -- which is what is referred to in legal matters -- the word religion is used, without specific reference to any religion.

So...a Christian might try to use this law to justify not serving a Muslim. A Muslim might try to use this law to justify not serving a Christian. Anyone of any faith might try to use this law to not serve someone for some reason. It's possible.

And regarding that point, I think there would be some kind of test for that similar to what is required in the reasonable accommodation legislation for businesses. IOW, one has to demonstrate that one needs to be afforded reasonable accommodation for one's religious practice. If one asks to be exempted from working on the Sabbath for example one must demonstrate that is indeed a tenet of one's faith and that one is a regular practitioner of the same. It can't be used just as an excuse to get an extra day off.

So to apply that to the scenario above one would have to demonstrate it is a tenet of Christian faith not to serve Muslims or vice versa. Or one would have to demonstrate that it is against one's religious faith to serve gays in one's establishment and that one has practiced this consistently. Of course that is not what people are even asking for. They are asking to be exempted from participating in same sex marriages because they deem them to be immoral according to their religious faith.

 

[Sees]

And regarding that point, I think there would be some kind of test for that similar to what is required in the reasonable accommodation legislation for businesses. IOW, one has to demonstrate that one needs to be afforded reasonable accommodation for one's religious practice. If one asks to be exempted from working on the Sabbath for example one must demonstrate that is indeed a tenet of one's faith and that one is a regular practitioner of the same. It can't be used just as an excuse to get an extra day off.

So to apply that to the scenario above one would have to demonstrate it is a tenet of Christian faith not to serve Muslims or vice versa. Or one would have to demonstrate that it is against one's religious faith to serve gays in one's establishment and that one has practiced this consistently. Of course that is not what people are even asking for. They are asking to be exempted from participating in same sex marriages because they deem them to be immoral according to their religious faith.

This would give a high prejudice towards older, more accepted/acknowledged religions. As far as laws are concerned, a religion that is 2,000 years old with a billion followers should be given no special treatment over one 2 years old with 10 followers.

Any of the new religious laws are really just designed to hook up certain groups anyways. Sadly we will all end up focusing on the laws and not the ridiculous views/traditions that make them even slightly matter.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This would give a high prejudice towards older, more accepted/acknowledged religions. As far as laws are concerned, a religion that is 2,000 years old with a billion followers should be given no special treatment over one 2 years old with 10 followers.

Any of the new religious laws are really just designed to hook up certain groups anyways. Sadly we will all end up focusing on the laws and not the ridiculous views/traditions that make them even slightly matter.

Exactly. It's just more privileges for Christians to hell with everyone else. It's quite telling that the other part of the bill put "In God We Trust" on the state seal. It's all such a joke.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Wasn't there already a case where someone tried to use their religious beliefs as a way to not serve blacks and the courts shut that down?

Anyway rules like this for businesses reflect how more and more we are giving business rights like people.

Corporations are already treated as people under the law. It's gotten far out of hand.

 

[nazz]

This would give a high prejudice towards older, more accepted/acknowledged religions. As far as laws are concerned, a religion that is 2,000 years old with a billion followers should be given no special treatment over one 2 years old with 10 followers.

Yeah, that is a problem, I agree. But there has to be some kind of standard or people would just claim anything.

 

[nazz]

Exactly. It's just more privileges for Christians to hell with everyone else. It's quite telling that the other part of the bill put "In God We Trust" on the state seal. It's all such a joke.

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!"

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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!"

It's not the same thing and since you apparently realize that on some level, why did you waste your time posting that?

 

[nazz]

It's not the same thing and since you apparently realize that on some level, why did you waste your time posting that?

What I am acknowledging is your double standard, sorry to say. I think you are reacting to this emotionally and can't see the forest for the trees.

Just as I want my right to not engage in what I deem to be unethical protected so I must extend that right to others even if I do not agree with their views.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What I am acknowledging is your double standard, sorry to say. I think you are reacting to this emotionally and can't see the forest for the trees.

Just as I want my right to not engage in what I deem to be unethical so I must extend that right to others even if I do not agree with their views.

Yeah, being against further privileging the majority religion is so "emotional".

I'm over this whole trainwreck of a thread, so ******* spare me.

 

[nazz]

Yeah, being against further privileging the majority religion is so "emotional".

It should apply to everyone equally.

I'm talking about an emotional reaction to what you perceive as legitimizing discrimination against gays.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It should apply to everyone equally.

Which it obviously doesn't, but go ahead and keep cheering for it as if it's some great landmark in civil liberties.

I'm talking about an emotional reaction to what you perceive as legitimizing discrimination against gays.

Er, that was the original point of these bills.

How dare those uppity minorities get "emotional" about discrimination directed toward them being given a pass by the government!