Religious Right in Arizona Cheer bill that allows them to not act like Jesus would...

goldfly said:
i understand their position and have no problem of them having that dumb belief in their personal life

but to advocate compromising to allow their religious beliefs to enter into our society that shouldn't recognize their religious beliefs is absurd
Click to expand...

All involved in the public arena must submit.
 
AerchAngel said:
They want full acceptance.

They won't get it, just like there are some whites, some blacks, some Muslims, some Christians, some of any walk of life will not accept some things in life. It is not dumb, it is human nature and it is in all of us. The problem is that some people can't accept even that, they want people to accept them no matter what. I can accept racism towards me, that is on that person. I am no better than they are as I harbor my own.
Click to expand...

AA, I think it goes further than acceptance. It's approval that is the goal, the end game.
 
Just my weird arsed opinion, I DO NOT think people can control or choose who they're attracted to, I used to think it was a choice, but I have either evolved or devolved (depending on your point of view) to a point where I think people were born in whatever way they were born, choice wise. That said we ALL make choices on who we have sex with, as well as lots of other choices we make every single day. How many of you are tempted to do things that might be against the law (man's or God's) but you didn't do it???
 
BedellBrave said:
Then try this idea on for size - there actually could be someone who has made a choice to engage in sexual relations with people of their own sex.
Click to expand...

any time anyone has sex, they are choosing to have sex

unless they are being raped
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Just my weird arsed opinion, I DO NOT think people can control or choose who they're attracted to, I used to think it was a choice, but I have either evolved or devolved (depending on your point of view) to a point where I think people were born in whatever way they were born, choice wise. That said we ALL make choices on who we have sex with, as well as lots of other choices we make every single day. How many of you are tempted to do things that might be against the law (man's or God's) but you didn't do it???
Click to expand...

Why must it be an either/or? Why are folks so afraid of allowing for the possibility that some homosexuals are homosexual by choice?
 
BedellBrave said:
Why must it be an either/or? Why are folks so afraid of allowing for the possibility that some practicing homosexuals are practicing by choice?
Click to expand...

Does that mean they aren't really very good at it? yeah, don't answer that one. I really don't care who consenting adults choose to bang, but marriage is another matter, for better or for worse, it simply isn't the same thing.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Does that mean they aren't really very good at it? yeah, don't answer that one. I really don't care who consenting adults choose to bang, but marriage is another matter, for better or for worse, it simply isn't the same thing.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't think "orientation" is always an exclusively static idea.

And yes, I agree about marriage.
 
BedellBrave said:
No your analogies are apples to oranges.

Answer my question. Is refusal to do a pornographic shoot discriminatory? Be consistent. Your position is that if someone wants a business to provide a service within it's type of services, then that business must perform it if they serve the general public. The wishes of the customer are paramount.

Now to your question.

And I answer for myself. I think such a photographer is bigoted. I think their conviction is wrong. That it is unsound. And that they should/ought to do a photo shoot for such a wedding. But, that the couple hiring them would be better served choosing another photographer.

But should it be illegal for the photographer to refuse service? Probably not (though I realize that's not a popular or appealing position). We want everything to be black/white (pardon the pun) and we act as if there is some sort of common, agreed-upon, moral code to which we can appeal - but there isn't. What we do in the end is encode one morality over another - one person's freedom over another's. It's all about power.

Thinking further though about your scenario, I wonder, would a person that believes interracial marriage is wrong, be willing to do a non-wedding photo shoot of the interracial couple? I doubt it.

I know the baker in CO was willing to provide his services to that couple for other things beyond the wedding cake.

Now to your concluding opinion, I think that's the only option now available for photographers and bakers and anyone offering wedding services. But, it will challenged and it won't stand either.

Because, again, it is all about approval…and submission...
Click to expand...

Thread blew up a bit so I'm not gonna hit every post. But I'll tackle this one.

All analogies are flawed but it's way closer than what you're going for.

As far as pornographic photography, I know a lot of people who're photographers, film makers, etc. They don't shoot porn because they aren't porn photographers. They're wedding, nature, documentary, etc. they're not asked to do other jobs aside from by family/friends. For a comparison, I sell ****, I could sell cars, no one would ask me because I sell cars to fix a car. You wouldn't ask me because I sell cars to sell jet engines. People who shoot porn shoot porn. That's about it. They don't go trolling wedding photographers. And they'd be able to reject it because they shoot weddings. So it's really simple, you're comparing apples and oranges.

If you believe that someone can choose 100% who to serve period then that's fine, if you're selective in who you think they can choose to discriminate legally, that's where the problem is.
 
BedellBrave said:
Different theories point to genetics, environment, choice or a combination.
Click to expand...

All (or pretty much all) human activity, including the notion of "choice," is a combination of gentic and environmental factors; the real question is just the proportional effect of each.
 
One current theory is saying it's not genetic (DNA) at all, but epi-genetic/environmental, but the main contributing environment is the womb.
 
Meanwhile: I agree with Hawk that the "inborn versus chosen" discussion is just a distraction.
 
BedellBrave said:
One current theory is saying it's not genetic (DNA) at all, but environmental, but the main contributing environment is the womb.
Click to expand...

A womb which itself is compiled through transcription and replication of nucleic acids, making the interpolation of genetic material nevertheless unavoidable.
 
jpx7 said:
A womb which itself is compiled through transcription and replication of nucleic acids, making the interpolation of genetic material nevertheless unavoidable.
Click to expand...

I added epigenetic (switches).

Maybe they'll discover an in-vitro corrective. ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top