Should bad religion be tolerated?

[TagliatelliMonster]

O

Oh? What are they about then ?

Individual freedoms and rights in general.

A band refusing a wedding gig because it's a gay wedding and the band has homophobic religious objections, is not calling upon some privileged right for the religious.
That same band can also refuse a gig at an NRA even because they are against guns.
Or refuse an Exxon personel party because they are against fossil fuels.
Or refuse a gig at the hard rock café because... they just don't feel like playing that day.

To pretend as if this has anything to do with religion or "special religious rights" is simply ridiculous.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Use of peyote in religious rites of NAś, animal sacrifices of santeia

I'm unfamiliar with, actually have never heared about, the terms "peyote", "NAś" or "santeia".
So I have no clue what you are referring to.

I could just google it off course, but it seems kind of ridiculous to do so, considering I asked a general question about a general comment and then get slammed without something completely alien and obviously very niche.

I guess I was expecting a general answer to a general question.

 

[shmogie]

Anyone can refuse any 'commission' for any reason.
The plumber can refuse any 'commission' for any reason he likes. A business that's open to the public, however, is obliged to serve the public equally and fairly.
Groups of private individuals, and organized private clubs can deny membership to any individual for any reason they like.

These are not examples of extraordinary religious rights or freedoms. These are freedoms everyone has regardless of their religion, or lack of one.

The cake maker in Colorado refused to bake a homosexual themed wedding cake because of his faith. This was deemed illegal, went to the supremes and he won the case.

Could you refuse to create and sell a product to someone because they were a homosexual ?

The freedom of association is a firmly established American legal principle. However, it is not iron clad.

Take my example of little league baseball. If in some surreal scenario a league in a big city advertised in the spring ¨"come play baseball, 8 - 12 year olds, teams forming now. Black kids will not be allowed to sign up"

How long do you think it would be, before a law suit was filed ? About 10 minutes. Yet Little League baseball is a completely private organization.

 

[shmogie]

Individual freedoms and rights in general.

A band refusing a wedding gig because it's a gay wedding and the band has homophobic religious objections, is not calling upon some privileged right for the religious.
That same band can also refuse a gig at an NRA even because they are against guns.
Or refuse an Exxon personel party because they are against fossil fuels.
Or refuse a gig at the hard rock café because... they just don't feel like playing that day.

To pretend as if this has anything to do with religion or "special religious rights" is simply ridiculous.

You are in error. Not an American, right ? You do not understand the case law here regarding the first amendment.

I would suggest that if this is the case, your ignorance of American law, need not be exercised in a discussion where it contributes nothing.

There have been many many cases of people being exempted fro working on a particular day because of religious conviction. Do you think Joe Blow could go to his boss and say, "I refuse to work saturday because I have a golf game that day ¨ ?

 

[shmogie]

I'm unfamiliar with, actually have never heared about, the terms "peyote", "NAś" or "santeia".
So I have no clue what you are referring to.

I could just google it off course, but it seems kind of ridiculous to do so, considering I asked a general question about a general comment and then get slammed without something completely alien and obviously very niche.

I guess I was expecting a general answer to a general question.

You asked for examples, I gave you examples. The first amendment and case law from it would be alien to a non American.

Peyote is a hallucogenic drug in a desert plant pod. Itś use is illegal. Yet Native Americans are exempted because it is used in one of their religious rights.

Santeria is a religion primarily from the Caribbean area. They were exempted from animal cruelty laws because as part of their faith, they sacrifice animals.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are in error. Not an American, right ? You do not understand the case law here regarding the first amendment.

I would suggest that if this is the case, your ignorance of American law, need not be exercised in a discussion where it contributes nothing.

There have been many many cases of people being exempted fro working on a particular day because of religious conviction. Do you think Joe Blow could go to his boss and say, "I refuse to work saturday because I have a golf game that day ¨ ?

That's a completely different example then the one you gave.
Having said that, I sincerely doubt that in the US (of all places), employers are legally forced to give paid or even unpaid leave on a specific day because of a non-national religious feast in the religion of the employee.

I'm sure some employers will do that. But let's not pretend as if it is the law that they must.

 

[dianaiad]

That's actually not at all what he said. Read it again.

OK, I read it again.

Yeah, that's pretty much what he said.

Seems to me that it is pretty self-explanatory though.........

In your POV...but now you are pretty much saying that YOUR standards, morals and opinions are the 'one true way."

Y'know, (musing) I really don't like tattoos. I think that...unless one is a South Sea Islander or a member of some other cultural 'tribe,' or group that makes tattoos an integral part of their society, that there is no excuse for them. They are stupid. They are permanent reminders of temporary impulses, and let's face it; the 'tramp stamp' that looks 'cute' on a lithe and fit 22 year old looks pretty bad when that girl is an 80 year old great great grandmother.

Or...how about the young woman who gets her boyfriend's name tattooed on her arm...and marries someone else, and perhaps wants to run for office, or be a lawyer?

Oops. Stupid. Idiocy.

That's my POV on tattoos. So...is my opinion regarding tattoos the 'one true way?"

How about....I really do believe that anybody who tries talking someone of the opposite sex into HAVING sex before marriage is doing great harm to his/her target (and this IS an equal opportunity thing). that sort of pressure is absolutely wrong. Many people believe that sex before marriage is not only just dandy, but actually a good idea. All I see is the damage done.

"Self-explanatory?" I don't think so.

Willing to bet that that is not at all what he or she meant.

I don't think "he or she" THOUGHT that's what was meant, but.....that's what was meant. All these 'SJW's" going out and deciding that THEIR opinions, standards, morals, ethics and opinions of 'how things ought to be' are really the way things ought to be for everybody, and 'there oughta be a law.' to make it so.

(shrug)

Now, I do have an opinion on the way things ought to be. Absolutely, I do.

It's the way we get there that I sometimes have problems with.

 

[dianaiad]

An artist can refuse a commission if the proposed project violates her religious belief.

A plumber or store owner cannot refuse service regardless of their belief.

Two things: artists have special rules. For some reason, photographers and confectioners are not considered to be 'artists' for that purpose. I don't think that anybody would consider Ansel Adams 'not an artist,' but hey....

Second thing: I know of no plumbers who have religious problems with sewer systems, or store owners who have religious objections to selling kitchen appliances. These things don't impact religion.

HOWEVER...

Nobody here would get unhappy with a Jewish Deli that refused to sell pork products, or an Orthodox Jewish catering company that refused to serve non Kosher refreshments at a 'goyim' wedding. Shoot, nobody would get unhappy with an Orthodox Jewish wedding planner who refused to plan a Mormon wedding. Nor would it be a problem if a devout Catholic photographer or wedding planner refused to 'do' the wedding of a divorced person whose spouse was still living.

But y'all get annoyed because...say...a photographer who is perfectly happy to 'shoot' birthday parties, graduations, personal portraits or pretty much anything for a gay person, refuses to shoot a wedding...even when it is clearly stated that the company only does straight "Christian" weddings. (BTW....that photographer would probably refuse to shoot a Mormon wedding,too)

The nation of islam, the black muslims, can deny membership based upon race, the local Little League cannot.

the local Little League doesn't have a religious affiliation. Or a reason to object to any religious ceremony.

 

[dianaiad]

An artist can refuse a commission if the proposed project violates her religious belief.

A plumber or store owner cannot refuse service regardless of their belief.

Two things: artists have special rules. For some reason, photographers and confectioners are not considered to be 'artists' for that purpose. I don't think that anybody would consider Ansel Adams 'not an artist,' but hey....

Second thing: I know of no plumbers who have religious problems with sewer systems, or store owners who have religious objections to selling kitchen appliances. These things don't impact religion.

HOWEVER...

Nobody here would get unhappy with a Jewish Deli that refused to sell pork products, or an Orthodox Jewish catering company that refused to serve non Kosher refreshments at a 'goyim' wedding. Shoot, nobody would get unhappy with an Orthodox Jewish wedding planner who refused to plan a Mormon wedding. Nor would it be a problem if a devout Catholic photographer or wedding planner refused to 'do' the wedding of a divorced person whose spouse was still living.

But y'all get annoyed because...say...a photographer who is perfectly happy to 'shoot' birthday parties, graduations, personal portraits or pretty much anything for a gay person, refuses to shoot a wedding...even when it is clearly stated that the company only does straight "Christian" weddings. (BTW....that photographer would probably refuse to shoot a Mormon wedding,too)

The nation of islam, the black muslims, can deny membership based upon race, the local Little League cannot.

the local Little League doesn't have a religious affiliation. Or a reason to object to any religious ceremony.

 

[shmogie]

That's a completely different example then the one you gave.
Having said that, I sincerely doubt that in the US (of all places), employers are legally forced to give paid or even unpaid leave on a specific day because of a non-national religious feast in the religion of the employee.

I'm sure some employers will do that. But let's not pretend as if it is the law that they must.

There have been a number of lawsuits where the courts have mandated that an employee must be given a day considered holy by their religion, off.

Twice you have used the word pretend, i.e. lying. I ignored it the first time, not now.

You do not understand religious liberty issues in this country. You do not understand the first amendment, you have no knowledge of the relevant case law, you really don´t know jack of the issue,yet you call e a liar.

Knock off the sly ad hoinems, or to the ignore list you go.

I don´t take this **** any more.

 

[PureX]

The cake maker in Colorado refused to bake a homosexual themed wedding cake because of his faith. This was deemed illegal, went to the supremes and he won the case.

As I've already stated, as a provider of creative services he could accept or reject any "commission" for any reason. His religious reasons were irrelevant to his ability to reject the commission.

Could you refuse to create and sell a product to someone because they were a homosexual?

I could choose not to accept a creative commission for any reason. I could not, however, open a business to the general public and then refuse to provide the products or services my business is offering to certain members of the general public, unfairly (such as my not liking their skin color, ethnic history, or their sexual proclivities).

The freedom of association is a firmly established American legal principle. However, it is not iron clad.

Take my example of little league baseball. If in some surreal scenario a league in a big city advertised in the spring ¨"come play baseball, 8 - 12 year olds, teams forming now. Black kids will not be allowed to sign up"

How long do you think it would be, before a law suit was filed ? About 10 minutes. Yet Little League baseball is a completely private organization.

I don't think you grasp the definitions of public and private in terms of the conduct of commerce. If LLBB is a private club it is free to discriminate as it chooses. If it is offering a service to the general public, it is obliged to treat the general public honestly and fairly. It can't offer something and then reject the offer when "certain people" show up.

Sometimes, the service being offered requires that the patron participate in the service (like in a themed restaurant, for example, where everyone dresses in keeping with the theme) and so a customer can be turned away for disrupting the experience being served (by not wearing the theme costume, for example). But this is not unfair discrimination because ANY customer not wearing the theme costume would be refused service, and the reason for the rejection is logical relative to the service being offered.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In your POV...but now you are pretty much saying that YOUR standards, morals and opinions are the 'one true way."

You're changing all the language.
The actual statement wasn't abou morals, standards and opinions.
It was about what constitutes "harm" and "exploitation".

Y'know, (musing) I really don't like tattoos. I think that...unless one is a South Sea Islander or a member of some other cultural 'tribe,' or group that makes tattoos an integral part of their society, that there is no excuse for them. They are stupid. They are permanent reminders of temporary impulses, and let's face it; the 'tramp stamp' that looks 'cute' on a lithe and fit 22 year old looks pretty bad when that girl is an 80 year old great great grandmother.

And how is this opinion in any way related to defining what constitutes "harm" and "exploitation"?

Or...how about the young woman who gets her boyfriend's name tattooed on her arm...and marries someone else, and perhaps wants to run for office, or be a lawyer?

How is that related to what constitutes "harm" or "exploitation"?

That's my POV on tattoos. So...is my opinion regarding tattoos the 'one true way?"

Your opinion regarding tattoos (or anything else for that matter) has nothing whatsover to do with the point that was under discussion, which was about what constitutes "harm" and "exploitation".

How about....I really do believe that anybody who tries talking someone of the opposite sex into HAVING sex before marriage is doing great harm to his/her target (and this IS an equal opportunity thing). that sort of pressure is absolutely wrong. Many people believe that sex before marriage is not only just dandy, but actually a good idea. All I see is the damage done

Forcing somebody into having sex without their consent is called rape, which obviously causes harm.
However, your belief that sex before marriage, as a thing, causes harm, is just a belief.
You believing it is not enough and indeed an opinion. You'ld have to actually demonstrate how it is harmfull, so that is not just some belief or opinion, but a well reasoned evaluation based on rational argumentation and evidence instead.

"Self-explanatory?" I don't think so.

How about this: "harm" are those things that negatively impact someone's well-being?

I don't think "he or she" THOUGHT that's what was meant, but.....that's what was meant

That makes no sense at all. This is basically saying that you know better then the other poster what that poster actually meant. That is obviously ridiculous. I think when someone says something, they have a specific meaning in mind. They might badly express themselves but the thing they mean is actually the thing they mean. It's absolutely absurd to say "you think you meant it like that but you really meant it like this". Absolutely absurd.

All these 'SJW's" going out and deciding that THEIR opinions, standards, morals, ethics and opinions of 'how things ought to be' are really the way things ought to be for everybody, and 'there oughta be a law.' to make it so.

(shrug)

Now, I do have an opinion on the way things ought to be. Absolutely, I do.

It's the way we get there that I sometimes have problems with.

No idea what you mean by "SJW's". And unlike you, I'm not going to assume what you meant and then run with it. Instead I'll ask you: what do you mean by that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There have been a number of lawsuits where the courts have mandated that an employee must be given a day considered holy by their religion, off.

Twice you have used the word pretend, i.e. lying. I ignored it the first time, not now.

You do not understand religious liberty issues in this country. You do not understand the first amendment, you have no knowledge of the relevant case law, you really don´t know jack of the issue,yet you call e a liar.

Knock off the sly ad hoinems, or to the ignore list you go.

I don´t take this **** any more.

Prove me wrong then.
Refer me to the law that says that an employer is legally forced to accomodate for religious feasts just because they are religious.

 

[shmogie]

As I've already stated, as a provider of creative services he could accept or reject any "commission" for any reason. His religious reasons were irrelevant to his ability to reject the commission.
I could choose not to accept a creative commission for any reason. I could not, however, open a business to the general public and then refuse to provide the products or services my business is offering to certain members of the general public, unfairly (such as my not liking their skin color, ethnic history, or their sexual proclivities).
I don't think you grasp the definitions of public and private in terms of the conduct of commerce. If LLBB is a private club it is free to discriminate as it chooses. If it is offering a service to the general public, it is obliged to treat the general public honestly and fairly. It can't offer something and then reject the offer when "certain people" show up.

Sometimes, the service being offered requires that the patron participate in the service (like in a themed restaurant, for example, where everyone dresses in keeping with the theme) and so a customer can be turned away for disrupting the experience being served (by not wearing the theme costume, for example). But this is not unfair discrimination because ANY customer not wearing the theme costume would be refused service, and the reason for the rejection is logical relative to the service being offered.

The cake maker in Colorado owns a bakery. He sells wedding cakes all the time. People come in and order them from him all the time. He advertises custom made wedding cakes. He refused to bake a homosexual cake for a homosexual wedding. The state said he was in violation of the law, the supremes said not. A Christian caterer to the public cannot be compelled to cater a satanic meeting, based on religion.

Someone who provides products or services to the public can refuse selling or acting based upon religious principles. The bar is high, as it should be, but it has been reached in a number of instances.

The right to freedom of association is different from the right to practice ones religion.

One cannot apply the first to commercial applications. The second can be applied.

Even the right to freedom of association has been questioned. There used to be many country clubs that banned Blacks, Jews, and Women. These were totally and completely private. public pressure, and legal harassment changed these outfits for the better.

Employees, under defined criteria can refuse to work on a certain day, for religious principles. There has been a number of these cases that the plaintiff has won.

One city passed an ordinance that no one could go door to door for solicitation for any reason. A denomination that has the total focus of itś ministry on contacting people door to door was deemed exempt, under the first amendment right to the free practice of religion.

 

[dianaiad]

You're changing all the language.
The actual statement wasn't abou morals, standards and opinions.
It was about what constitutes "harm" and "exploitation".


And how is this opinion in any way related to defining what constitutes "harm" and "exploitation"?



How is that related to what constitutes "harm" or "exploitation"?



Your opinion regarding tattoos (or anything else for that matter) has nothing whatsover to do with the point that was under discussion, which was about what constitutes "harm" and "exploitation".



Forcing somebody into having sex without their consent is called rape, which obviously causes harm.
However, your belief that sex before marriage, as a thing, causes harm, is just a belief.
You believing it is not enough and indeed an opinion. You'ld have to actually demonstrate how it is harmfull, so that is not just some belief or opinion, but a well reasoned evaluation based on rational argumentation and evidence instead.



How about this: "harm" are those things that negatively impact someone's well-being?



That makes no sense at all. This is basically saying that you know better then the other poster what that poster actually meant. That is obviously ridiculous. I think when someone says something, they have a specific meaning in mind. They might badly express themselves but the thing they mean is actually the thing they mean. It's absolutely absurd to say "you think you meant it like that but you really meant it like this". Absolutely absurd.


No idea what you mean by "SJW's". And unlike you, I'm not going to assume what you meant and then run with it. Instead I'll ask you: what do you mean by that?

Your question, several times asked, was...what does my opinion on tattoos and other things have to do with 'harm' and 'exploitation?'

It's simple. I believe strongly that such things are exploitative and cause harm. Sex outside of marriage IS the cause of children of unwed mothers, and that's not a good thing. Multiple partners promotes sexually transmitted diseases...and these two things ARE proven, medically and scientifically. They are also, I believe, the cause of many failed relationships and emotional harm to all participants. Sex outside marriage, premarital sex, multiple partners, ALL put the participants at greater risk for STD's and unwanted pregnancies, and "I didn't WANT to be pregnant!' is the usual plaint of the woman seeking an abortion. I count abortion as akin to murder; abortion ends a human life. I find that to be very, very bad. Evil, even. In most cases. Not fond of most R-rated movies, either. Or dating too soon...like before the age of 16..

So you have me, with the above opinions, deciding what is 'harm' and exploitation.' What makes you think that everybody is going to consider 'harmful' and 'exploitative' everything you think is...and ONLY the things you think is?

Do I get to decide that it is so harmful that I can get a law passed to prohibit it? What about some of the other things that would be sinful for ME to do? Do I have the right to close down all the Starbucks, and make drinking alcohol, coffee and tea...and smoking, illegal? This IS about harmful things. What's wrong with ME deciding what is, and what is not, harmful and exploitative?

Oh, by the way, I think that liberals and atheists (not the same folks all the time, even if they are some of the time) exploit and do grave harm to their children because they don't teach those kids the same cultural beliefs and moral standards *I* think they should teach.

Think about that.

Oh. SJW? means 'social justice warrior.' Basically snoops, nosey, officious know it alls who think that what THEY consider to be 'not good' should be made illegal and enforced.

 

[shmogie]

Prove me wrong then.
Refer me to the law that says that an employer is legally forced to accomodate for religious feasts just because they are religious.[/QUOTE[/QUOTE
1964 US civil rights act, title VII, "an employer must acommodate an employees sincerely held religious belief regarding holy days or religious holidays unless the employer can prove that a true hardship would result in such accomodation.¨

This rule has been tested legally many times. In most cases, the employer did not prove the existence of a true hardship existed.

You are wrong. Do you want to argue US law some more ?

 

[PureX]

Your question, several times asked, was...what does my opinion on tattoos and other things have to do with 'harm' and 'exploitation?'

It's simple. I believe strongly that such things are exploitative and cause harm. Sex outside of marriage IS the cause of children of unwed mothers, and that's not a good thing. Multiple partners promotes sexually transmitted diseases...and these two things ARE proven, medically and scientifically. They are also, I believe, the cause of many failed relationships and emotional harm to all participants. Sex outside marriage, premarital sex, multiple partners, ALL put the participants at greater risk for STD's and unwanted pregnancies, and "I didn't WANT to be pregnant!' is the usual plaint of the woman seeking an abortion. I count abortion as akin to murder; abortion ends a human life. I find that to be very, very bad. Evil, even. In most cases. Not fond of most R-rated movies, either. Or dating too soon...like before the age of 16..

But you're creating a circular argument. Sexuality is the cause of all these 'problems', not sex outside of marriage. Marriage is just a label. It doesn't stop the transmission of disease, or make people want to become pregnant, or make people monogamous, or make people not have sex. It's just a label we apply to our good intentions.

 

[dianaiad]

But you're creating a circular argument. Sexuality is the cause of all these 'problems', not sex outside of marriage. Marriage is just a label. It doesn't stop the transmission of disease, or make people want to become pregnant, or make people monogamous, or make people not have sex. It's just a label we apply to our good intentions.

Changing the topic, PureX. Defending your beliefs as the 'correct' ones doesn't address whether you have the right to impose them on anybody.

and by 'impose,' I do NOT mean 'attempt to pursuade.' I mean ' enforce by means of law..or, er, force."

As for 'marriage,' well..."marriage" has two levels; a legal one, where the government assigns rights, obligations and privileges, and a religious or cultural one, apart from the legal one. One can have a legal marriage that is not recognized by one or more religions or cultures, and one may have a religious..or cultural...marriage that is not recognized legally. One thing MOST marriages have in common, however, is an 'exclusivity' clause; one's sex life is, generally, devoted to one's spouse. (exceptions occur, of course, but they are notable BECAUSE they are exceptions). Monogamy, in other words. Monogamy IS the solution to those problems I mentioned: STDs, 'illegitimate' (or children with only one parent, most of the time) babies. If we humans could change our natures, we wouldn't have to have rules and good advice, now, would we?

 

[PureX]

Changing the topic, PureX. Defending your beliefs as the 'correct' ones doesn't address whether you have the right to impose them on anybody.

and by 'impose,' I do NOT mean 'attempt to pursuade.' I mean ' enforce by means of law..or, er, force."

As for 'marriage,' well..."marriage" has two levels; a legal one, where the government assigns rights, obligations and privileges, and a religious or cultural one, apart from the legal one. One can have a legal marriage that is not recognized by one or more religions or cultures, and one may have a religious..or cultural...marriage that is not recognized legally. One thing MOST marriages have in common, however, is an 'exclusivity' clause; one's sex life is, generally, devoted to one's spouse. (exceptions occur, of course, but they are notable BECAUSE they are exceptions). Monogamy, in other words. Monogamy IS the solution to those problems I mentioned: STDs, 'illegitimate' (or children with only one parent, most of the time) babies. If we humans could change our natures, we wouldn't have to have rules and good advice, now, would we?

Monogamy limits the spread of STDs, but does not impede unwanted pregnancy, and does not impede divorce. And as to "illegitimate" babies, that's a semantic issue. It could easily be argued that marriage (with a promise of monogamy) actually encourages divorce and therefor single-parenting.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Should bad religion, religion that promotes bigotry and prejudice, be tolerated?

At what point does neutral/good religion tip the scale into bad, and who should decide such a thing?

Definitely. Freedom of religion is essential for a free democratic society. That said , even tolerance has it's limits should any religion cross the line whenever it interferes with another person's health and safety.

Darwin award contenders excepted, provided they are adults and participate willingly in activities with the potential for grevious outcomes. Snake handlers, Christian Identity, and Westboro types come to mind off the top.