Georgia Religious Freedom Bill

[BedellBrave]

Yeah, just like there's a moral equivalency between supporters of apartheid in South Africa (because of their deeply held personal beliefs, of course) and artists who refused to perform in South Africa during the apartheid regime.

If that's the horse you want to back, feel free.

Sure we can make distinctions between levels of service choice, discrimination, etc. Point still stands.

Bruce Springsteen doesn't like it that NC via it's gov't bans someone with a penis from showering in a public shower with girls and women. He's allowed that opinion.

Not sure whether his view or the view of NC is quite the same as those of Apartheid supporters and opponents. But goodness if you are going to do that sort of thing, go ahead and do the whole enchilada and cut to Hitler and all.

 

[BedellBrave]

We went on this merry-go-round a lot during the Kim Davis thing.

I'm icked out by your sexual orientation or gender identity, therefore my thoroughly cherry-picked religious sentiment mandates a special exception to the law. Because cooties.

Seems a rather childish tract y'all have chosen. And I wouldn't say that concern over sexual ethics is necessarily a cherry-picked religious sentiment.

 

[BedellBrave]

no

unless you think concerts and when a person decides they want to play music is a service

which would be beyond a stretch

but i think if Ray Charles was around he would agree that someone has to take a stand on performing music in places that treat certain people as a different class of citizen

Sure it is a service. Well, I guess that depends on if you like Springsteen's music or not. He's a entertainer. You pay to watch him entertain. You are paying for a service.

 

[BedellBrave]

i got ya

i am saying that it isn't a service in the modern use of the word service imo

it isn't like going to the store to get food or gas etc is what i was saying when it comes to the term service.

You rather mean that his refusal to provide a service based on his beliefs is fine by you because you agree with him.

 

[goldfly]

Sure it is a service. Well, I guess that depends on if you like Springsteen's music or not. He's a entertainer. You pay to watch him entertain. You are paying for a service.

i don't think i would ever categorize entertainment as a service

going to a braves game isn't a service for me. the person bringing me a beer is performing a service and i will tip accordingly for that service

just my own thinking on the semantics/definitions of the word/words being use by saying a concert is a service

 

[BedellBrave]

But before we move on can you at least admit that you're picking and choosing which social intolerances you're willing to tolerate form private businesses?

i.e. - when you agree with them, no big deal. When you disagree with them, we need a supreme court ruling?

Where are we on Olivia Cruises?

It certainly seems that way to me.

 

[BedellBrave]

i don't think i would ever categorize entertainment as a service

going to a braves game isn't a service for me. the person bringing me a beer is performing a service and i will tip accordingly for that service

just my own thinking on the semantics/definitions of the word/words being use by saying a concert is a service

Let's use the word "product" then - I don't care. He refuses to provide them the product they paid for due to his personal beliefs, discriminating against them.

 

[Julio3000]

Sure we can make distinctions between levels of service choice, discrimination, etc. Point still stands.

Bruce Springsteen doesn't like it that NC via it's gov't bans someone with a penis from showering in a public shower with girls and women. He's allowed that opinion.

Not sure whether his view or the view of NC is quite the same as those of Apartheid supporters and opponents. But goodness if you are going to do that sort of thing, go ahead and do the whole enchilada and cut to Hitler and all.

I made that comment in response to sturg33's consistent equivalencies about refusal of services and strongly held beliefs. You've seemed to go along with them. So...distinctions, or no?

 

[Julio3000]

Seems a rather childish tract y'all have chosen. And I wouldn't say that concern over sexual ethics is necessarily a cherry-picked religious sentiment.

Then, as I've asked many times, why this sexual sin above all others, and above other Biblical proscriptions? That seems the very definition of cherry picking.

And, ethics implies a choice, does it not? Sure, a gay couple chooses to marry, but we're past questioning their "choice" of sexual orientation, aren't we?

 

[goldfly]

i could maybe get down with product

i guess

i will never not find it funny though that people that like to discriminate and treat others as 2nd class citizens try to turn the tables to say "you are discriminating/not being tolerant because you are discriminating/not tolerating my hateful/discriminating views" to people that stand up against them

 

[BedellBrave]

I made that comment in response to sturg33's consistent equivalencies about refusal of services and strongly held beliefs. You've seemed to go along with them. So...distinctions, or no?

I believed I've already provided the answer to that question.

 

[BedellBrave]

Then, as I've asked many times, why this sexual sin above all others, and above other Biblical proscriptions? That seems the very definition of cherry picking.

And, ethics implies a choice, does it not? Sure, a gay couple chooses to marry, but we're past questioning their "choice" of sexual orientation, aren't we?

Why assume that someone who argues for the biblical sex ethic when that is being debated is putting it above other biblical proscriptions? I think that's an unnecessary framing of the matter for rhetorical purposes.

Even if we buy in to the paradigm of biological sex - gender orientation - sexual identity, there's still choice involved in whether or not you take your penis into a public shower with girls and women, right?

 

[BedellBrave]

i could maybe get down with product

i guess

i will never not find it funny though that people that like to discriminate and treat others as 2nd class citizens try to turn the tables to say "you are discriminating/not being tolerant because you are discriminating/not tolerating my hateful/discriminating views" to people that stand up against them

Groovy

 

[sturg33]

i could maybe get down with product

i guess

i will never not find it funny though that people that like to discriminate and treat others as 2nd class citizens try to turn the tables to say "you are discriminating/not being tolerant because you are discriminating/not tolerating my hateful/discriminating views" to people that stand up against them

See... this is what bugs me. I'm a pro-gay marriage guy. I don't support not serving these people.

You like to twist the argument to get your moral superiority over me, but you miss the point - either intentionally or not.

My beef is the state forcing private business to submit to the will of requests that they find morally wrong. They can be the dumbest people in the country - and it makes no difference to me. Nobody ever answers the KKK cake question because I presume the answer goes against their argument. You pick and choose what you want to enforce based on your personal beliefs. You're basically doing the equivalent of what you're always whining Christians do - just on the opposite side of the spectrum. Laws shouldn't be inconsistent, should they?

Olivia can say no to men. That's not a problem in your world. It's not in mine either. So why isn't it that way for everyone?

 

[Julio3000]

It certainly seems that way to me.

And I said as much, did I not? I'm biased towards strongly held beliefs that uphold the dignity, worth, and full citizenship of all, and would be inclined to support discrimination or intolerance—if you prefer—in certain cases in favor of that end. I aspire to respect for and tolerance of those who feel differently. I'm not perfect on that score, but I'm comfortable with that position.

 

[sturg33]

People showing their true . . . ahem, colors.

It's a shame our culture doesn't have an underlying philosophy or dominant code of conduct that would move people to behave more compassionately towards one another.

This is so old.

So a person says he identifies people with penises as men and he is a racist/sexist/homophobe/transaphobe/insert scare word of the month

Are we supposed to hang on every word of every person in the world and anyone who says something we may disagree with must be crucified?

Get over it.

 

[57Brave]

Olivia can say no to men.

when did Olivia say no to men ?

 

[BedellBrave]

And I said as much, did I not? I'm biased towards strongly held beliefs that uphold the dignity, worth, and full citizenship of all, and would be inclined to support discrimination or intolerance—if you prefer—in certain cases in favor of that end. I aspire to respect for and tolerance of those who feel differently. I'm not perfect on that score, but I'm comfortable with that position.

Good for you and I (though of course a bigot) commend your effort to maintain what you perceive to be the high ground.

 

[sturg33]

The government has already said they want to prosecute climate change deniers... I suppose everyone is cool with that bc, hey - them people just a bunch of dumb racist bigot hicks!

Don't agree with big government? You go to jail.

Sounds like a tolerant society you guys are building

 

[Julio3000]

Why assume that someone who argues for the biblical sex ethic when that is being debated is putting it above others? I think that's an unnecessary framing of the matter for rhetorical purposes.

Even if we buy in to the paradigm of biological sex - gender orientation - sexual identity, there's still choice involved in whether or not you take your penis into a public shower with girls and women, right?

If you don't know why assume that, I can't really believe that you're arguing in good faith.

I've not had a lot of personal experience with transgendered people. The limited experiences that I've had lead me to believe that having, for example, a person with male genitalia who otherwise identifies as a woman doing their business in a restroom designated for the gender with which they identify is a lesser problem—on numerous fronts, law enforcement not the least among them—than the other way around. I certainly could roll with the punches if I were in that situation, I'm certain that my wife could, and I aspire to raise kids who can frankly and critically assimilate the realities involved. You presumably differ, and that's fine. I just see the NC legislation as a solution in search of a problem.