Originally posted by Adrift
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Same Sex Marriages, Florists, and Bakers
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostCarpe seems to insist that your acceptance of scripture as an authority is completely devoid of any corresponding reason or logic, and I find that hard to believe.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostDo you deny that food is necessary for survival, and that regular meals are necessary for good health?
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostWhat's ridiculous is the straw man you just constructed.
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAre you referring to the same First Amendment that should protect a religious business owner from being forced to provide a service in a way that conflicts with his core values?
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostWe're only on page three, and you're already arguing against yourself.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostThe other thread was closed at the request of the original poster. Since it was not a subject issue in general, I'm going out on a limb and assuming it is OK to simply open a new thread for those who want to continue the discussion. I have responded to Jim, Seer, Tab, and Sparko in this one OP.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion with Jim was basically about the balance between religious freedom and civil rights. I had posed two questions of Jim:
1) Would you defend the right the members of a religion who own a business (e.g., a diner on the town's main street) to have a "white's only" policy because they believe "god saves only the white person; it is sinful to have any interactions with a black person." This is what their holy book tells them.
2) Would you defend the right the members of a religion who own a business (e.g., a diner located in a private commune accessible only to the members of the community) to have a "white's only" policy because they believe "god saves only the white person; it is sinful to have any interactions with a black person." This is what their holy book tells them.
Jim - I hope you see this!
Secondly skin color is somewhat of a strawman. A person cannot help prevent or change their skin color and the evils of refusing to do business with a skin color are recognized. A person with homosexual orientation CAN choose their behavior, same as I can choose what I want to order to drink. You don't have to have sex to live. Therefore your argument is moot. IF a person believes eating meat is wrong you forcing them to eat meat is just as sinful. If a person believes that engaging in homosexual sex is wrong, then forcing them to engage in that practice (e.g. forced participation in their marriage) is equally as wrong.A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
George Bernard Shaw
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostAnd even with the whole ADA thing, there's always a "reasonable accommodation" aspect. You don't just expect the business to shut down if they can't comply with every expectation of ADA.
1) Those that are permitted within the church and in the public arena.
2) Those that are permitted within the church but NOT in the public arena
3) Those that are NOT permitted within the church or the public arena.
A church-backed demonstration against abortion would be an example of 1).
If a church practiced nude rituals, that would be an example of 2)
Human sacrifice or polygamy would be an example of 3) (though I personally think the government has no place defining marriage for churches)
So the question becomes where does engaging in prejudicial/discriminatory actions against a segment of the population fall? Folks here are arguing it is another example of 1). I am arguing that it is another example of 2).The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat doesn't make sense,
Originally posted by seer View Posthow is ethical relativism, where every individual or culture is the final authority on moral issues any better than relying on Scripture?
So the question is, how is YOUR subjective/relative moral framework better/worse than mine. The answer is, your are locked to a static model that is not subject to examination and argumentation. The only form your arguments can take is "what does the book say/mean?" The rest of us can discuss impacts on society, internal consistency, underlying value structures, and a whole host of issues. All you can discuss is "is it in the book?"
Originally posted by seer View PostIt seems to me that you have just made moral disagreement a thousand fold worse.
Originally posted by seer View PostWhen you force the religious baker, by law, to serve the gay couple you have certainly limited the baker's freedom. That is self evident.
Originally posted by seer View PostSo you would not force the baker by law to make the cake for a gay wedding?
Originally posted by seer View PostI have no problem with ending Jim Crow, but when it comes to private business and personal interaction that is where I draw the line. And what I do in the market place does not affect everyone, that is just silly.
Originally posted by seer View PostNever mind the fact that there is no Constitutional principle for you to appeal to. It is antithetical to personal freedom. But you leftists don't care about such things as long as you can force us to conform to your morally twisted thinking.Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-11-2019, 09:25 AM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostReading some of your back and forth with Carpe, it seems to me that there's some unspoken assumptions about your view of scripture as an authority. You didn't pick up a Bible one day, go into a trance and say "I will obey" like a robot, or anything, correct? Typically there is a chain of logic and reasoning that proceeded your accepting scripture as authoritarial. Perhaps the grandness of the universe, and the accomplishments of mankind has convinced you that this couldn't have all been accidental, and that there was a transcendent cause behind it all, or perhaps you intuitively believe that life has meaning, and that people have intrinsic value, and you accept that this value is imparted or associated with being created in God's image. Or maybe you saw how Christ touched and changed the lives of others in powerful and positive ways, and also wanted to live a more than abundant life that allowed you to be a positive influence in the lives of others, or maybe you witnessed miracles, and it convinced you that there is more than this. My point is that, while scripture may be your final authority (though it's probably more accurate to say that Jesus is your final authority), there was good reason for you to believe that the Bible was authoritative, correct? Carpe seems to insist that your acceptance of scripture as an authority is completely devoid of any corresponding reason or logic, and I find that hard to believe.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI suspect that's because as a moral relativist, carpe has arrived at his own notions of rightness and wrongness largely on the basis of what he happens to "feel" is correct, and he assumes that Christians rely on the authority of scripture for the same reason.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAnd turned it into a flimsy straw man in the process.
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostRight... either compromise his moral values, or close up shop. Some choice.
Second, your argument boils down to "it's too hard!" Sorry, MM, but sometimes following ones conscience involves pain and sacrifice. There are no guarantees that it will be easy. "It's too hard" is not an argument.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostNo - that is not Michel's position. I am reasonably sure Seer had reasons for selecting the bible as his moral framework. He has never struct me as an irrational man. We ALL have reasons why we have chosen the specific moral framework we have chosen.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostMichel has a hard time expressing his positions clearly, as evidenced by much confusion throughout the forum.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Catholicity View PostSo two things here. The US has laws that protect business owners. Frankly I am glad, as a retail worker, we have the right to refuse business with anyone and It allows us to tell vulgar customers, thieves and other people that they MUST LEAVE the store. My store uses this policy.
Originally posted by Catholicity View PostIt also means that someone can set up a business to serve anyone they choose. Their policies might be terrible and I don't defend them in anyway, but the laws exist to protect a business owner's right to serve or not serve.
Originally posted by Catholicity View PostIf you don't like that, you are free to become a senator and try to change it,
Originally posted by Catholicity View Postand of course you the customer are free to do business with anyone you want, so if you despise someone's practices (e.g Wal Mart) you don't have to shop there. Its elitist and privileged to think you don't have consumer rights.
Originally posted by Catholicity View PostSecondly skin color is somewhat of a strawman. A person cannot help prevent or change their skin color and the evils of refusing to do business with a skin color are recognized. A person with homosexual orientation CAN choose their behavior, same as I can choose what I want to order to drink. You don't have to have sex to live. Therefore your argument is moot.
Originally posted by Catholicity View PostIF a person believes eating meat is wrong you forcing them to eat meat is just as sinful. If a person believes that engaging in homosexual sex is wrong, then forcing them to engage in that practice (e.g. forced participation in their marriage) is equally as wrong.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post"Relying on scripture" is just another example of ethical relativism, Seer. You have subjectively and relatively decided to hitch your moral wagon to your interpretation of the scriptures. That you declare it "absolute" and "universal" and "objective" doesn't make it so. You've simply locked your morality to the writings of a small group of men now dead 2-3.5 millenia. SO the question is, how is YOUR subjective/relative morality better/worse than mine. The answer is, your are locked to a static model that is not subject to examination and argumentation. The only form your arguments can take is "what does the book say/mean?" The rest of us can discuss impacts on society, internal consistency, underlying value structures, and a whole host of issues. All you can discuss is "is it in the book?"
Moral disagreement is a fact of life. It is a fact for Christians. It is a fact for nonchristians. Here's a simple analog. Let's say one group of people believes that cars move, and another believes that cars actually stand still and the planet moves. If the latter group finally acknowledged that it's the cars moving under their own power and not the planet moving, would it worsen or improved the incidence of car accidents? Acknowledging the reality in front of our noses doesn't change the consequences of that reality. You, my friend, are an example of a person who looks at the car and says "the planet is moving." All around you is evidence that morality IS relative/subjective. Even your own morality is relative/subjective. But you tenacious cling to the illusion that you are locked onto an absolute. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't actually MAKE it absolute.
I would require ANY business person that offers a service to do so without bigotry/prejudice/discrimination. No business person is forced to provide a service. They are simply required, if they do so, to do so equitably. That is a condition of doing business in the public sphere.
I'll leave this rant to you. It's so filled with inaccuracies, I wouldn't even know where to begin.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostMichel has a hard time expressing his positions clearly, as evidenced by much confusion throughout the forum.
If history is any indicator - the truth will lie somewhere in between. I have little doubt I could better express myself. Brevity might be a good start.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Today, 01:12 PM
|
4 responses
52 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 02:38 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:33 AM
|
45 responses
351 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Today, 05:05 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
60 responses
388 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 03:09 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
100 responses
440 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 12:45 PM |
Comment