Religious liberty and hatred

[Eric the Green]

My discussion with radind about religion on the "Debate over the Vietnam War" thread is off topic there, so I think it deserves a separate thread.

I am not alone in saying that perhaps the horrible event in Orlando should give some people pause about their ideology. Not that it will, but it should. Ideologies of discrimination are historically quite clearly associated with killings and lynchings. In the past, black people were the most frequent victims. Nowadays, it is more likely to be gays/LGBT people.

Social conservatives are likely to claim that they have a right to refuse service to gay people if such service violates their religion. This is called "infringement of religious liberty." Candidates like Ted Cruz use "religious liberty" as a code word to permit discrimination and hatred. They also of course do the same thing with the "second amendment," claiming they are "protecting the constitution" by running for office to make sure judges are appointed who will "uphold our rights" to discriminate and let people have weapons of mass murder.

People who think discrimination against providing services to gays who are getting married, or to dispense contraceptives, and so on, is upholding religious liberty, are contributing to the attitude of hatred that infects the minds of creepy lunatics like Mr. Mateen in Florida. Perhaps religious people like radind should take a look at how to modify or rephrase their beliefs, so that they don't contribute to creating a culture of hatred in which murders like the ones in Orlando are enabled and facilitated.

I also note that Donald Trump's response to this event, is to shout more slogans that further create more of these events. The shooter Mr. Mateen was clearly against all diversity. So is Mr. Trump. It matters little that Mateen is against diversity from his Muslim religion, while Mr. Trump is against diversity that includes Muslims. It's the same idea. Those OTHERS are dangerous, and ruin our country, and they must be stopped. Mr. Trump is therefore culpable of furthering more events like the Orlando shooting. By diverting attention from the real causes: hateful prejudice, and easy access to weapons of mass murder, he is also promoting further such tragic events. Mr. Obama's statements by contrast are accurate and level-headed. Rather than Obama resigning, as Mr. Trump has called for, it is Mr. Trump who should now end his campaign, crawl back into his tower, and stfu. And no-one who doesn't want more events like the Orlando shootings, should even remotely consider voting for this creep.

[TnT]

Religious doctrine is a plague on the face of the earth.

[Anthony '58]

Who cares any more? Thanks to a radical Islamist with an AR-15, LGBTs have gone the way of the Jews since 9/11 in the estimation of the Religious Right.

[radind]

(06-14-2016, 03:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ...Perhaps religious people like radind should take a look at how to modify or rephrase their beliefs, so that they don't contribute to creating a culture of hatred in which murders like the ones in Orlando are enabled and facilitated....

Since neither of us is likely to change our views, I don’t want to restart the entire discussion, but I need to stress that I don’t think that I have done anything to “contribute to creating a culture of hatred".

You might be interested in this broad review on worldviews.

Quote:Understanding Our Polarized Political Landscape Requires a Long, Deep Look at Our Worldviews By Annick de Witt on June 28, 2016

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gues...?wt.mc=SA_

… "However, more important than any typology of worldviews is the reflexive attitude a worldview-perspective supports. Worldviews are a fundamental part of individuals’ group identities, and people often react as strongly to perceived threats to these social identities as they do to defend themselves against personal attacks. We see this in the heat and emotionality of our political debates! However, once we become more aware of our (naturally partial and biased) worldviews, we start to see them in a larger context of a wider range of perspectives and values. We realize that there are also other worldviews, and that the people who hold them are not all idiots”…

[pbrower2a]

Religious liberty sounds like the apotheosis of tolerance. But religious freedom does not invariably produce Quaker-like gentleness. It can also produce the Westboro Baptist Church (associated with the infamous site godh@tesf@gs.com) and 00 as in Iraq and Syria, which had some religious pluralism, ISIS.

[radind]

(06-28-2016, 09:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Religious liberty sounds like the apotheosis of tolerance.  But religious freedom does not invariably produce Quaker-like gentleness. It can also produce the Westboro Baptist Church (associated with the infamous site godh@tesf@gs.com) and 00 as in Iraq and Syria, which had some religious pluralism, ISIS.

There are problems in many religions and the Westboro Baptist Church does not fit my concept of a Christian group. In my opinion a Christian church with a Biblical worldview would not behave in such a horrible way. you can always find bad examples of any group you want to look at. 
It still comes down to individual responsibility and accountability.

[radind]

(06-28-2016, 09:25 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 08:03 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 03:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ...Perhaps religious people like radind should take a look at how to modify or rephrase their beliefs, so that they don't contribute to creating a culture of hatred in which murders like the ones in Orlando are enabled and facilitated....

Since neither of us is likely to change our views, I don’t want to restart the entire discussion, but I need to stress that I don’t think that I have done anything to “contribute to creating a culture of hatred".

You might be interested in this broad review on worldviews.

Quote:Understanding Our Polarized Political Landscape Requires a Long, Deep Look at Our Worldviews By Annick de Witt on June 28, 2016

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gues...?wt.mc=SA_

… "However, more important than any typology of worldviews is the reflexive attitude a worldview-perspective supports. Worldviews are a fundamental part of individuals’ group identities, and people often react as strongly to perceived threats to these social identities as they do to defend themselves against personal attacks. We see this in the heat and emotionality of our political debates! However, once we become more aware of our (naturally partial and biased) worldviews, we start to see them in a larger context of a wider range of perspectives and values. We realize that there are also other worldviews, and that the people who hold them are not all idiots”…

Bingo. Which is why it pays to keep an ear open to everyone.

And listen with respect to all.

[Eric the Green]

(06-28-2016, 08:03 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 03:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ...Perhaps religious people like radind should take a look at how to modify or rephrase their beliefs, so that they don't contribute to creating a culture of hatred in which murders like the ones in Orlando are enabled and facilitated....

Since neither of us is likely to change our views, I don’t want to restart the entire discussion, but I need to stress that I don’t think that I have done anything to “contribute to creating a culture of hatred".

You might be interested in this broad review on worldviews.

Quote:Understanding Our Polarized Political Landscape Requires a Long, Deep Look at Our Worldviews By Annick de Witt on June 28, 2016

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gues...?wt.mc=SA_

… "However, more important than any typology of worldviews is the reflexive attitude a worldview-perspective supports. Worldviews are a fundamental part of individuals’ group identities, and people often react as strongly to perceived threats to these social identities as they do to defend themselves against personal attacks. We see this in the heat and emotionality of our political debates! However, once we become more aware of our (naturally partial and biased) worldviews, we start to see them in a larger context of a wider range of perspectives and values. We realize that there are also other worldviews, and that the people who hold them are not all idiots”…

Yes, I agree. I have also created the philosophers wheel with that in mind.

I think you are relying on "we have different worldviews" to justify your disagreement with me about whether gay marriage is legit and whether people should be allowed to discriminate against gays by refusing to provide services to gays who want to get married, or whether contraceptives should be provided by folks who don't believe in them, and similar issues.

But I think it's quite possible to believe in a separate creator God as you do, who has an only begotten Son who is our savior (perhaps to simplify your worldview too much, but it's something like that), as many folks in America do, and still be OK with folks who are different in their lifestyle from what you are used to. And not to think that those who accept or promote gay marriage are a threat to Christianity, as I think you have said.

If you don't think gays should get married, that's your right to your opinion. But I do think it contributes to a climate in which gays are looked upon poorly for engaging in such things as marriage. Sick minds (not including you of course ) can expand on such ideas and hurt gays. So, it's grounds for some thoughts on whether we shouldn't be more open to people who do things differently than we do.

That would not require you to become a non-traditional or non-Biblical Christian, an atheist, a Muslim, or a New Ager, etc., though I imagine you think that the Bible prohibits gay marriage (I don't think it does). Your worldview is not at issue in this respect.

I think it's possible not only to think that those with other worldviews are not idiots, but that to be fully alive is to be able to question and expand one's worldview, and not hold on to it tightly.

[radind]

(06-29-2016, 12:36 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 08:03 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 03:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ...Perhaps religious people like radind should take a look at how to modify or rephrase their beliefs, so that they don't contribute to creating a culture of hatred in which murders like the ones in Orlando are enabled and facilitated....

Since neither of us is likely to change our views, I don’t want to restart the entire discussion, but I need to stress that I don’t think that I have done anything to “contribute to creating a culture of hatred".

You might be interested in this broad review on worldviews.

Quote:Understanding Our Polarized Political Landscape Requires a Long, Deep Look at Our Worldviews By Annick de Witt on June 28, 2016

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gues...?wt.mc=SA_

… "However, more important than any typology of worldviews is the reflexive attitude a worldview-perspective supports. Worldviews are a fundamental part of individuals’ group identities, and people often react as strongly to perceived threats to these social identities as they do to defend themselves against personal attacks. We see this in the heat and emotionality of our political debates! However, once we become more aware of our (naturally partial and biased) worldviews, we start to see them in a larger context of a wider range of perspectives and values. We realize that there are also other worldviews, and that the people who hold them are not all idiots”…

Yes, I agree. I have also created the philosophers wheel with that in mind.

I think you are relying on "we have different worldviews" to justify your disagreement with me about whether gay marriage is legit and whether people should be allowed to discriminate against gays by refusing to provide services to gays who want to get married, or whether contraceptives should be provided by folks who don't believe in them, and similar issues.

But I think it's quite possible to believe in a separate creator God as you do, who has an only begotten Son who is our savior (perhaps to simplify your worldview too much, but it's something like that), as many folks in America do, and still be OK with folks who are different in their lifestyle from what you are used to. And not to think that those who accept or promote gay marriage are a threat to Christianity, as I think you have said.

If you don't think gays should get married, that's your right to your opinion. But I do think it contributes to a climate in which gays are looked upon poorly for engaging in such things as marriage. Sick minds (not including you of course ) can expand on such ideas and hurt gays. So, it's grounds for some thoughts on whether we shouldn't be more open to people who do things differently than we do.

That would not require you to become a non-traditional or non-Biblical Christian, an atheist, a Muslim, or a New Ager, etc., though I imagine you think that the Bible prohibits gay marriage (I don't think it does). Your worldview is not at issue in this respect.

I think it's possible not only to think that those with other worldviews are not idiots, but that to be fully alive is to be able to question and expand one's worldview, and not hold on to it tightly.

I hope that you read the entire article on worldviews that I found very informative.

Regarding threats to Christianity, my view is the the threat  to religious freedom comes from the majority Secular Humanists who operate as a de facto religion( while denying that they are a religion) and seem to me to have little tolerance for Christian values. My concern is not about small  minorities with different point of view. I am more concerned about the killing of unborn babies.
I agree with Popper on religion..." the idea that we are all motivated by some kind of faith (which he chose to call our religion)"...

I recently saw a review of a book by Eberstadt: "In an excellent new book, Mary Eberstadt argues that secular progressivism is not just a political ideology; it is a competing faith."...
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/06/17232/  [Have not read the book yet].

I understand that you do not agree with my assessments or with Barna and I do attribute this largely to our different worldviews. ( I still think that the polls showing ~10% in the US with a Biblical worldview are close to the actual situation).
I also understand that we are never going to agree . The effects will unfold one way or another in the future( next 20 years) and will be clear to those still alive and to historians.

This is an aside, but I am opposed to large( and very large) religious organizations and think that many of the problems associated with religion stem from the large organizations. Sometimes small & local is better.

[Odin]

Religious conservatives have a right to their beliefs, but they do not have a right to force those beliefs. "Religious Freedom" is nothing but a euphemism for getting around the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, which ironically was put in to protect the minority religious sects of the time, like the Baptists, from the dominance of the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists. And now given the increasing diversity of American religious life, with an increasing numbers of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Neo-Pagans, openly non-religious, etc. that original intent of the Establishment Clause is needed more than ever to protect those groups from the bigotry of the Religious Right.

Also, Radind, your claim that the US is no longer "really" majority Christian is disproved by the fact that being openly non-religious in most parts of the US is political suicide.

[Eric the Green]

(06-29-2016, 06:54 AM)radind Wrote: Regarding threats to Christianity, my view is the the threat  to religious freedom comes from the majority Secular Humanists who operate as a de facto religion (while denying that they are a religion) and seem to me to have little tolerance for Christian values.

I don't disagree that secular humanism is a defacto religion. I agree with you on that, and it is in fact a choice on the well-done select-smart religious survey. I hope you accept and realize that this is my view.

I disagree that they pose a threat to religious freedom. That is absurd. It is the religious right that is the threat to religious freedom. It's that point of view of yours that I regard as potentially dangerous; not that I view YOU as a danger, but others who hold similar views do see a threat to their religion, and their response is to impose their religion on others in response. People who act out of fear of threat, are likely to be intolerant and authoritarian to meet the perceived threat.

Quote: My concern is not about small  minorities with different point of view. I am more concerned about the killing of unborn babies.

Lots of people are concerned about abortion. People have different views. All I can say is, may the best side win. Or may we find an acceptable compromise, and deal with the other serious issues that must be faced now in our 4T. Abortion may not be resolved any sooner than the debate over guns and the 2nd Amendment, and it is not an issue that defines our 4T, although it contributes to the division of the country.

Quote:I understand that you do not agree with my assessments or with Barna and I do attribute this largely to our different worldviews. (I still think that the polls showing ~10% in the US with a Biblical worldview are close to the actual situation).
I also understand that we are never going to agree . The effects will unfold one way or another in the future (next 20 years) and will be clear to those still alive and to historians.

I expect that the issues you are bringing up are NOT 4T issues at all and won't be resolved any time soon. Thus, they may be around for centuries, not 20 years. The issue does depend on worldviews, and those do not change in 4Ts.

I disagree that my rejection of barna is due to my worldview. I reject their definitions and their methodology. I have already made that clear. But, on this forum, people do not usually read or consider what other participants write. I think secular humanists, widely defined, are about 10-15% of the population, and evangelicals/fundies are 40% and Christians overall about 75%. No, we don't agree on that, but I contend that that is the fact. I do agree that "seculars" have more influence than their mere numbers.

Quote:This is an aside, but I am opposed to large (and very large) religious organizations and think that many of the problems associated with religion stem from the large organizations. Sometimes small & local is better.

I agree, but your religious views are still the same as, and are based on, those of the large, central traditional authorities.

[pbrower2a]

(06-28-2016, 11:40 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 09:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Religious liberty sounds like the apotheosis of tolerance.  But religious freedom does not invariably produce Quaker-like gentleness. It can also produce the Westboro Baptist Church (associated with the infamous site godh@tesf@gs.com) and -- as in Iraq and Syria, which had some religious pluralism, ISIS.

There are problems in many religions and the Westboro Baptist Church does not fit my concept of a Christian group. In my opinion a Christian church with a Biblical worldview would not behave in such a horrible way. you can always find bad examples of any group you want to look at. 
It still comes down to individual responsibility and accountability.

Which is like denying that the Sicilian Mafia is Italian. It may be grossly unrepresentative of Italian-American life; to be sure, most Italian-Americans want no ties to the Mob. They would rather live like characters in Moonstruck than in Goodfellas. If this sounds like a harsh judgment of criminals of a certain origin, then think of the worst criminal syndicate to have ever existed. I have much German ancestry, and I do not look for relatives in Germany after about 1870 in my genealogy. If I don't want a connection to Frank and Jesse James, then I don't want one to Hermann Goering. Someone born with my mother's not-very common maiden name was a Hungarian war criminal in Yugoslavia, duly executed by Tito's people for mass murder after the war.
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party][/url]
Westboro Baptist Church claims to have Biblical justification for its hatred of homosexuality. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" seems to contradict the theatrical gay-bashing of that group. There were churches that taught that slavery was a marvelous tool for bringing people to Jesus as (literal!) captive audiences for the Gospel. In a fascistic America, as in Nazi Germany, there would be churches that kiss up to a tyrant. But this all ties in to the contradiction of "Love thy neighbor as thyself".

Responsibility and accountability are essential to any Good Life.  Without those one at best gets away with doing horrible things to others. Without responsibility and accountability, then life is a zero-sum game at its worst.

[pbrower2a]

(06-28-2016, 11:40 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 09:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Religious liberty sounds like the apotheosis of tolerance.  But religious freedom does not invariably produce Quaker-like gentleness. It can also produce the Westboro Baptist Church (associated with the infamous site godh@tesf@gs.com) and -- as in Iraq and Syria, which had some religious pluralism, ISIS.

There are problems in many religions and the Westboro Baptist Church does not fit my concept of a Christian group. In my opinion a Christian church with a Biblical worldview would not behave in such a horrible way. you can always find bad examples of any group you want to look at. 
It still comes down to individual responsibility and accountability.

Which is like denying that the Sicilian Mafia is Italian. It may be grossly unrepresentative of Italian-American life; to be sure, most Italian-Americans want no ties to the Mob. They would rather live like characters in Moonstruck than in Goodfellas. If this sounds like a harsh judgment of criminals of a certain origin, then think of the worst criminal syndicate that ever existed.

I have much German ancestry, and I do not look for relatives in Germany after about 1870 in my genealogy. If I don't want a connection to Frank and Jesse James (another part), then I don't want one to Hermann Goering. Someone born with my mother's not-very common maiden name was a Hungarian war criminal in Yugoslavia, duly executed by Tito's people for mass murder after the war.

Westboro Baptist Church claims to have Biblical justification for its hatred of homosexuality. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" seems to contradict the theatrical gay-bashing of that group. There were churches that taught that slavery was a marvelous tool for bringing people to Jesus as (literal!) captive audiences for the Gospel. In a fascistic America, as in Nazi Germany, there would be churches that kiss up to a tyrant. But this all ties in to the contradiction of "Love thy neighbor as thyself".

Responsibility and accountability are essential to any Good Life.  Without those one at best gets away with doing horrible things to others. Without responsibility and accountability, then life is a zero-sum game at its worst.

[radind]

(06-29-2016, 07:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Quote:I don't disagree that secular humanism is a defacto religion. I agree with you on that, and it is in fact a choice on the well-done select-smart religious survey. I hope you accept and realize that this is my view.

A small item of agreement.

Quote:I disagree that they pose a threat to religious freedom. That is absurd....

What you think is absurd, I think is true.

Quote:I expect that the issues you are bringing up are NOT 4T issues at all and won't be resolved any time soon. Thus, they may be around for centuries, not 20 years. The issue does depend on worldviews, and those do not change in 4Ts.

 
I expect the changes to accelerate if Clinton is elected. 

Quote:I disagree that my rejection of barna is due to my worldview. I reject their definitions and their methodology. I have already made that clear. But, on this forum, people do not usually read or consider what other participants write. I think secular humanists, widely defined, are about 10-15% of the population, and evangelicals/fundies are 40% and Christians overall about 75%. No, we don't agree on that, but I contend that that is the fact. I do agree that "seculars" have more influence than their mere numbers.

We have different perception of the actual numbers. No point to discuss further-this will take time to unfold.

Quote:I agree, but your religious views are still the same as, and are based on, those of the large, central traditional authorities.

My postions are my own and I frequently disagree with many of what you call 'traditional authorities'. I am sure that there is overlap, but I have a fundamental disagreement with the concept of any central religious authority. 

[Eric the Green]

I don't expect "changes" on the abortion issue to "accelerate" if Hillary Clinton is elected. I would expect that the religious right would have less success in getting its views adopted though. The Courts are pretty consistent on this issue, and another liberal justice or two won't change things much, if at all. States still have different laws, and they won't change unless they go against the Supreme Court. Liberals will uphold the right to protest abortion clinics non-violently if they don't obstruct business.

[pbrower2a]

(06-29-2016, 03:17 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-29-2016, 07:05 AM)Odin Wrote: Religious conservatives have a right to their beliefs, but they do not have a right to force those beliefs.  "Religious Freedom" is nothing but a euphemism for getting around the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, which ironically was put in to protect the minority religious sects of the time, like the Baptists, from the dominance of the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists. And now given the increasing diversity of American religious life, with an increasing numbers of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Neo-Pagans, openly non-religious, etc. that original intent of the Establishment Clause is needed more than ever to protect those groups from the bigotry of the Religious Right.

Also, Radind, your claim that the US is no longer "really" majority Christian is disproved by the fact that being openly non-religious in most parts of the US is political suicide.

Exactly. Something I fortunately have not seen here so far in NZ. It is absolutely absurd and entitled. People just need to do their job and leave personal PERSONAL. It is funny. I have heard some people crying that the gays want special favours. Interesting they say that when it is some religious folk who want special favour over others *cough religious freedom cough* which often includes not serving people they disagree with. Which sometimes means not serving those they think want special favour. Do your fkng job and never mind what they are doing with THEIR lives. What the hell is it to them anyway what others do with their lives? Anyone could just stop doing their job at the drop of a hat due to disagreeing with how SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THEIR LIVES and in some cases it may be lethal to that person say if it were a surgeon. Oh i am not operating on that person because he or she is gay etc. Religious freedom and all that jazz. No, do your fkng job. You are a surgeon, operate on that person. You are a baker, bake for that person etc. No one is taking away rights to believe in what you want to believe but you do not have the right to take away others rights and demand special favour over the law. Sorry Odin not directed at you. Hahaha this is a topic that gets me fired up. These people seriously piss me off. Fkng entitled sobs who are similar to those who did not want to serve blacks back in the day. Prejudiced, rights removing entitled lil pricks. They are used to being top dog. Now they cry because they have to serve those they disagree with. Poor babies. Note, i know not all of them are like that. But some certainly are.

In some parts of America it was the 'right' to deny service to black people in restaurants or to deny hotel accommodations to Jews.

Yes, it's stupid and cruel.

[Anthony '58]

"Force those beliefs"?

If a baker goes to jail because s/he won't bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, who's forcing what beliefs on whom?

Yet this opens the door for the compromise that will end this battle in the Culture Wars once and for all: Pass ENDA, which would ban job, housing etc. discrimination against gays nationwide - but in return allow people of faith to opt out of aiding and abetting same-sex weddings, and also defund Planned Parenthood so that people of faith don't have to subsidize, with their tax money, something their beliefs teach is murder (and not for nothing, but did Exodus International ever receive government funding?).

[pbrower2a]

(07-01-2016, 07:37 AM)Anthony Wrote: "Force those beliefs"?

If a baker goes to jail because s/he won't bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, who's forcing what beliefs on whom?

Yet this opens the door for the compromise that will end this battle in the Culture Wars once and for all: Pass ENDA, which would ban job, housing etc. discrimination against gays nationwide - but in return allow people of faith to opt out of aiding and abetting same-sex weddings, and also defund Planned Parenthood so that people of faith don't have to subsidize, with their tax money, something their beliefs teach is murder (and not for nothing, but did Exodus International ever receive government funding?).

...and what if that baker refuses to make a cake that depicts a mixed (black and white) couple getting married?

If I own that bakery the only compromise that I might make is putting the candles or plastic objects depicting the mixed-race or same-sex couple on the cake myself, or squeeze out the names "Adam and Steve" on the cake myself, if necessary. But as the owner of that bakery, I would fire a a baker or froster who does a bigoted stunt that can cost me some income or put my shop at the risk of some legal sanction for discrimination. It is my belief that I can do any business that I can do that is legal and profitable is my right.

And, yes, if the customers for that cake so insist, then the cake will be kosher. Obviously, such would preclude the use of pork lard in making the cake.

The baker would not have to go to jail. He simply would never work for me again. It is not up to my employee to choose how I deal with race, religion, or homosexuality.

...Now if the celebration is about some underage girl having a two-year anniversary as a prostitute of some pimp, I have the right to report the request to the local police. I might make the cake and arrange for the pimp to pay for and pick up the cake, and arrange for a police officer to arrest the pimp and rescue the girl.  But that reflects my values -- I have a legitimate contempt for underage prostitution, which is part of a criminal activity. I will allow a little insult to my sensibilities to aid in the suppression of a horrible crime.  I doubt that any pimp would be that stupid as to trust me... but I do not own a bakery anyway.

[Eric the Green]

(07-01-2016, 07:37 AM)Anthony Wrote: "Force those beliefs"?

If a baker goes to jail because s/he won't bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, who's forcing what beliefs on whom?

Yet this opens the door for the compromise that will end this battle in the Culture Wars once and for all: Pass ENDA, which would ban job, housing etc. discrimination against gays nationwide - but in return allow people of faith to opt out of aiding and abetting same-sex weddings, and also defund Planned Parenthood so that people of faith don't have to subsidize, with their tax money, something their beliefs teach is murder (and not for nothing, but did Exodus International ever receive government funding?).

Let's not do that.

I don't approve of many things which the majority and their representatives vote to fund. It's up to the people and congress whether to fund planned parenthood or not, no doubt. But P.P. offers many helpful services, as Trump says. One possible compromise might be to fund only those other services, and not abortions, which are a small part of their practice.

If someone wants to buy a cake, why should that concern the baker if they are gay? Yes, that is imposing and forcing beliefs on them to deny cake for a same-sex wedding. I suppose if they don't want a fight, they could just go to another baker. Or the employee involved could just defer to someone else in the store.

I don't know what the penalities are for discrimination in housing for blacks, etc. I imagine the law requires compliance, if someone or some institution sues the discirminator. I don't know if the discriminator goes to jail or not.

[TnT]

So I willingly join the Denver Broncos football team as a talented middle line backer at an enviable salary.

During the first game, I inform the coach that my "religious beliefs" require me to "not come in contact with" anyone who is clearly overweight, as these overweight folks are "unclean, undisciplined and un-Godly" according to my religious doctrine.

However, I say to the coach, if you fire me, you will be discriminating against me on a religion basis!