Originally posted by Abigail
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
Children are just commodities in the liberal culture.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Abigail View PostI think that, JimL, because Christians *are* being systematically denied existence. Gay people who built their whole case around their identity and the persecution they were getting, now seem quite happy to ignore the identity of others and persecute those in turn. In other words they are undermining the whole logic on which they appealed to people because their actions are now showing a different message - that power and influence makes right. They used the empathetic, equal rights case because they knew this would have weight with Christians who are expected to treat their neighbours with Christian love and who do realize that ultimately people have freewill to live their own choices. For instance I have seen Starlight turn on the empathy taps full-blast when trying to make people feel guilty over holding a Christian view on homosexuality yet I have seen another streak in him, ruthless and totally lacking in empathy, when speaking about late term abortion. You can see why I am suspecting you guys for being manipulaters. Manipulating people into getting what you want, no matter if that entails people being forced into denying their sincerely held beliefs.
You saying I lack empathy when speaking about late term abortions is not really a statement that makes sense. What I think you're trying to contrast is the emotionally-appealing way I try to phrase pro-gay-rights arguments, with my relative disinterest in the emotionally-appealing way pro-life advocates try to phrase their arguments on abortion.
Whereas when I complain about conservatives lacking empathy on gay rights issues (and abortion for that matter), I am talking about the fact that they very often haven't even considered the point of view of gay people (or, in the case of abortion, the point of view of the pregnant woman). I commonly find on many issues that religious conservatives are often quite rules-focused rather than people-focused and so will simply say "the bible says X, therefore X" without engaging in any process of empathy and thinking about the point of view of the people that their rules would potentially hurt.
Courts are part of the public square and if I am being told I cannot conduct my business in accordance with my identity as a Christian then I am being discriminated against - by your own definition. We must then do away with gay bars etc etc
A Christian by definition sees his/her identity as primarily bound up in Christ. A gay person, by definition, obviously sees their identity primarily in terms of their sexuality.
If a customer comes into my shop wanting a gay wedding cake and I am forced to make it, all the while being threatened with law if I should I voice any Christian views I have on the matter, then my identity is being denied to me.
I am very skeptical of your general claim that your primary identity is being denied just because you're not allowed to act a certain way in a five minute period of your life. Surely, your identity as a Christian is an internal thing between you and God. Obviously, it has natural consequences about how you might want to act in various circumstances. But if you are not able to act in the way you want in every single circumstance, it doesn't destroy your internal identity. The very fact that as a sinner you sin shows that your identity is not lived out in every single way every single moment of the every day. Yet your deviance doesn't destroy your Christian identity.
If you come into my shop for a gay wedding cake and I refuse to make it, your identity is not being denied, in fact it is being recognized... So who is actually going to be losing more of their core identity? In the first senario I am denied my identity entirely. In the second You are denied a cake.
It's perfectly reasonable to make the argument that a person is harmed by not being able to fully-express their religious identity, and that they are being harmed by being forced to serve a customer they don't want to serve. And I agree. Yes. Those are real harms. That are really inflicted on the bakery owners in this scenario. But there are also harms inflicted on the customers in this scenario. And it is a matter of considering all the harms involved, and then selecting a law that finds an optimal balance. Most people who seriously sit down and work through the pros and cons of it, seem to conclude that the harms done to the customer outweigh those done to the owner, and therefore prefer the law to say that the owner must serve all equally.
People should be able to conduct business in accordance with their beliefs,"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostIt's perfectly reasonable to make the argument that a person is harmed by not being able to fully-express their religious identity, and that they are being harmed by being forced to serve a customer they don't want to serve. And I agree. Yes. Those are real harms. That are really inflicted on the bakery owners in this scenario. But there are also harms inflicted on the customers in this scenario. And it is a matter of considering all the harms involved, and then selecting a law that finds an optimal balance. Most people who seriously sit down and work through the pros and cons of it, seem to conclude that the harms done to the customer outweigh those done to the owner, and therefore prefer the law to say that the owner must serve all equally.
However, it's not enough to simply state that people acting according to their beliefs is a good thing, and therefore just allow them to do anything that their religion might happen to say is a good thing: eg doing drugs, human sacrifice, executing gay people, beheading blasphemers, killing the infidel, etc.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostHowever, it's not enough to simply state that people acting according to their beliefs is a good thing, and therefore just allow them to do anything that their religion might happen to say is a good thing: eg doing drugs, human sacrifice, executing gay people, beheading blasphemers, killing the infidel, etc.
Oh, YEAH!!!! That's the universe Starlight lives in!The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostWell, there's that pesky thing about the guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Um, perhaps you didn't notice that these extreme things you mentioned (really dumb examples) are bad things that one DOES, not things one refrains from doing, like not baking a cake.
What complete moron would equate... let's see..... "doing drugs, human sacrifice, executing gay people, beheading blasphemers, killing the infidel" = "not baking a cake"
The most cute recent example of the religious freedom laws in the US, is religious exemptions for marijuana usage. The First Church of Cannabis has now successfully registered with the IRS as a tax-exempt organisation using Indiana's new religious-freedom law. Their teachings promote the use of cannabis among their members, who are allowed to exercise their religious freedoms due to the new religious freedom laws, regardless of what other state and federal laws might happen to say about marijuana usage. But, of course, there was already a religion that endorsed marijuana use as a basic tenet, so members of that religion can equally use the new religious freedom laws to evade conviction. I wish good luck to any conservatives who want to stand up in court and argue "when we passed that religious freedom law, we didn't really mean religious freedom per se, just Christian freedom, and we didn't really mean to allow religious people to do anything their religion happened to teach, we were just trying to make it legal for people to be anti-gay." I'll be watching with popcorn.Last edited by Starlight; 06-09-2015, 08:13 AM."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI think you're confusing the words "empathy" and "emotionalism". They mean different things, though there can be some overlap. "Empathy" refers to understanding what another person is experiencing, and thinking about how the world must look through their eyes, and thinking about their point of view as well as your own. Some people are better at this than others, or are more naturally inclined toward doing it, and to a certain extent it seems to be a mental skill that can be learned. "Emotionalism" is about phrasing arguments to make heart-wrenching emotional appeals, a common debate tactic widely used by both sides on any given issue.
You saying I lack empathy when speaking about late term abortions is not really a statement that makes sense. What I think you're trying to contrast is the emotionally-appealing way I try to phrase pro-gay-rights arguments, with my relative disinterest in the emotionally-appealing way pro-life advocates try to phrase their arguments on abortion.
Whereas when I complain about conservatives lacking empathy on gay rights issues (and abortion for that matter), I am talking about the fact that they very often haven't even considered the point of view of gay people (or, in the case of abortion, the point of view of the pregnant woman). I commonly find on many issues that religious conservatives are often quite rules-focused rather than people-focused and so will simply say "the bible says X, therefore X" without engaging in any process of empathy and thinking about the point of view of the people that their rules would potentially hurt.
Originally posted by StarlightI would imagine that gay bars would be illegal according to standard anti-discrimination laws. They could certainly promote themselves to the gay community as a "gay bar", but legally they would have to serve anyone who walked through their door, gay or not.
Originally posted by StarlightUm, no. For lots of Christians, being a Christian is not regarded by them as their primary identity, just one thing among many. And I don't think I've ever heard of a gay person who ever said being gay was their primary identity... surely by definition gender has to be more primary than sexuality anyway, because to have a given sexuality you have to first have a gender yourself and then compare it to the gender you're attracted to, so your sexuality is a derived characteristic of those two things and not a primary thing.
Originally posted by StarlightYou could presumably tell them about your views, while taking their cake order.
Originally posted by StarlightI am very skeptical of your general claim that your primary identity is being denied just because you're not allowed to act a certain way in a five minute period of your life. Surely, your identity as a Christian is an internal thing between you and God. Obviously, it has natural consequences about how you might want to act in various circumstances. But if you are not able to act in the way you want in every single circumstance, it doesn't destroy your internal identity. The very fact that as a sinner you sin shows that your identity is not lived out in every single way every single moment of the every day. Yet your deviance doesn't destroy your Christian identity.
Originally posted by StarlightHowever, the purpose of secular law is not "to maximally recognize the self-identity of all citizens". If that really was a widely-shared social goal, then you would have a point. However, as I have mentioned before, the overall social view that drives most modern laws and most secular people's idea of morality is along the lines of wanting to "maximize well-being and minimize harm in an equitable way". So what will interest most people who consider the bakery scenario will be the pros and cons of the different possible laws in terms of who is harmed/helped and why, and what would result in the greatest equality.Originally posted by StarlightIt's perfectly reasonable to make the argument that a person is harmed by not being able to fully-express their religious identity, and that they are being harmed by being forced to serve a customer they don't want to serve. And I agree. Yes. Those are real harms. That are really inflicted on the bakery owners in this scenario. But there are also harms inflicted on the customers in this scenario. And it is a matter of considering all the harms involved, and then selecting a law that finds an optimal balance. Most people who seriously sit down and work through the pros and cons of it, seem to conclude that the harms done to the customer outweigh those done to the owner, and therefore prefer the law to say that the owner must serve all equally.
Originally posted by StarlightI agree that people being able to act according to their beliefs is part of the concept of "freedom" and is a good thing. However, I think people acting in a way that harms other people is a bad thing. So if one group of people wants to act according to their beliefs (a good) in a way that harms other people (a bad), I've then got to think through all the pros and cons of the situation, and it's not inherently obvious which principle should be allowed to win out over the other. However, it's not enough to simply state that people acting according to their beliefs is a good thing, and therefore just allow them to do anything that their religion might happen to say is a good thing: eg doing drugs, human sacrifice, executing gay people, beheading blasphemers, killing the infidel, etc.Last edited by Abigail; 06-09-2015, 08:35 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostThe most cute recent example of the religious freedom laws in the US, is religious exemptions for marijuana usage. The First Church of Cannabis has now successfully registered with the IRS as a tax-exempt organisation using Indiana's new religious-freedom law. Their teachings promote the use of cannabis among their members, who are allowed to exercise their religious freedoms due to the new religious freedom laws, regardless of what other state and federal laws might happen to say about marijuana usage. But, of course, there was already a religion that endorsed marijuana use as a basic tenet, so members of that religion can equally use the new religious freedom laws to evade conviction. I wish good luck to any conservatives who want to stand up in court and argue "when we passed that religious freedom law, we didn't really mean religious freedom per se, just Christian freedom, and we didn't really mean to allow religious people to do anything their religion happened to teach, we were just trying to make it legal for people to be anti-gay." I'll be watching with popcorn.
Hatred of Christians is real and growing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostUm... you do realize those things are not actually guaranteed, because that phrase is from the declaration of independence which has no legal force...?
(If it did, the legal case for same-sex marriage in the US would have been a lot stronger! Pretty hard to argue that prohibiting a gay couple from marrying isn't denying them their right to pursue happiness.)
Telling a customer that you're refusing them service is also something that one does, so I don't see the relevance of this distinction.
Those are all true examples of things that religious people have wanted to do as part of their religion, things which many people feel harm others. That is why vaguely worded religious freedom laws are dangerous, because people around the world and through history have wanted to do quite a number of things in the name of religion that hurt others.
I think I'll just ignore your "cute" example.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Irate Canadian View PostAd JimL ignores my posts.... Hurrah...Last edited by RumTumTugger; 06-09-2015, 10:35 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RumTumTugger View PostHe's ignoring that it was a cake with a message the baker did not agree with. or if he isn't then Jiml is saying it is ok to force a black cake baker to bake a cake with a pro KKK message on it or a jewish cake baker a pro nazi message becuase other wise they are discriminating against someone else never mind they would like teh christian cake baker bake other cakes for people who have a different view then they do.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostOK, TwebMom -- Be nice to JimL!
oh and it looks like starlight would be in JimLs camp here as well. Since a customer wanting to put a Pro-KKK or Pro-Nazi message on their cake has a right to force a black or jewish cake baker to do the job. according to how JIML, Starlight and their ilk for abusing the anti discrimination laws.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RumTumTugger View PostWhy
oh and it looks like starlight would be in JimLs camp here as well. Since a customer wanting to put a Pro-KKK or Pro-Nazi message on their cake has a right to force a black or jewish cake baker to do the job. according to how JIML, Starlight and their ilk for abusing the anti discrimination laws.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostIt's up to you. The Lord told me if I can be nice to Jim, I can be nice to anybody.
It gets silly. Would I even WANT to eat a cake that I forced somebody else to bake? That would be like griping out your waiter before you got your food.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostWell, it's obviously not about the cake, it's about pushing lawsuits so they can get their way.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Starlight would you bake a cake for my black Friends and I saying "Down with the white devil"?"Kahahaha! Let's get lunatic!"-Add LP
"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin is pride that apes humility"-Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Oh ye of little fiber. Do you not know what I've done for you? You will obey. ~Cerealman for Prez.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
116 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Today, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
318 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
111 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
196 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
360 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 11:08 AM
|
Comment