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

zitothebrave said:
1. Military buys things off contract, so unless he's a military contractor that isn't a problem.

2. No he doesn't have to if he wants to because

3. Business entities are not people and aren't protected by civil rights.
Click to expand...

Is the Muslim allowed to refuse his services to a banker (to clean the banker's home)?

Is the Mennonite allowed to refuse to sell his aluminum to an individual who tells him he is designing a prototype weapon to market and he needs aluminum?

Trying to think how far y'all's benevolent tolerance extends.
 
jpx7 said:
As Julio said, that's all very easy to say in 2014, but there was a time when "go[ing] to somebody who does" was a very difficult proposition—and, for some groups and types of people, it still is.
Click to expand...

They are places catered to people, even today.

Would I want to go to some dive that would pull a knife on my black ass if I step one foot in their establishment, hell yeah there is, even in this city?

As for those who likes the same sex, I do not see that problem and haven't. Now personal services that is toward the religious aspect, I can see that, but should they forfeit their beliefs to submit to another. No, they shouldn't, it is infringing on their rights.

Like I said before, if someone forces me to do something I don't want, I will not give my best effort if you know what I mean.

So I will not go somewhere I am not welcomed as I have other choices and if these religious based people do not want them around there are other choices, but going to the media is just going to behold the business even more.
 
BedellBrave said:
Is the Muslim allowed to refuse his services a banker (to clean the banker's home)?

Is the Mennonite allowed to refuse to sell his aluminum to an individual who tells him he is designing a prototype weapon to market and he needs aluminum?

Trying to think how far y'all's benevolent tolerance extends.
Click to expand...

If they want to yes. Because there is no one who's born to make weapons or born to be a banker.
 
Could a baker refuse to make a wedding cake for a Roman Catholic-Caucasian guy and his Muslim-Caucasian girlfriend because of the baker's conviction that two people of different faiths shouldn't marry?
 
AerchAngel said:
+ 100000

I didn't bitch and moan when my food got served cold, waited an hour and was giving my money back with a hint don't come back here, so guess what I did, I told all my friends about it and they refuse to go to that place because picked up what I was getting at.

You do not have to accept my skin color or me marrying white and I am not going to make you. Who the hell are you in the grand scheme of things? If you don't want me around, I will go to somebody who does.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way about many things -

I think private citizens should be able to do what they want (within reason). If two men want to marry, they will have to face social consequences, of course, but I don't see how they should have to face legal ones. If a black man and a white woman want to marry (or the other way around/whatever), they will have to face social consequences, of course, but I don't see how they should have to face legal ones. etc etc I don't want the government in private bedrooms or private businesses or whatever. Less, in this regard, is more. If there are currently laws on the books that make private citizens have to pay legal consequences for such things (instead of just social), then I support getting them removed or amended.
 
BedellBrave said:
So you are going back to that argument?

Was it you who used an analogy about mixed-religious marriages?
Click to expand...

It's not really going back to any argument. I don't think that discriminating on someone because of anything they identify themselves as is cool. But your profession isn't.

That said, I don't think I've ever met someone who's been discriminated for being a banker or working as part of the MIC.
 
Dalyn said:
I feel the same way about many things -

I think private citizens should be able to do what they want (within reason). If two men want to marry, they will have to face social consequences, of course, but I don't see how they should have to face legal ones. If a black man and a white woman want to marry (or the other way around/whatever), they will have to face social consequences, of course, but I don't see how they should have to face legal ones. etc etc I don't want the government in private bedrooms or private businesses or whatever. Less, in this regard, is more. If there are currently laws on the books that make private citizens have to pay legal consequences for such things (instead of just social), then I support getting them removed or amended.
Click to expand...

The problem is, not all basic or essential services fall within the domain of the legal and/or governmental. And if basic or essential services are being denied on the merits of self-identification (for instance), then the consequences extend well beyond the mere "social"; at this point, some sort of institutional intercession is not just necessary but right.

I'm fine with making the sorts of distinction Bedell suggests, but I'm not fine with the protect businesses at all cost mantra strug advocates.
 
jpx7 said:
The problem is, not all basic or essential services fall within the domain of the legal and/or governmental. And if basic or essential services are being denied on the merits of self-identification (for instance), then the consequences extend well beyond the mere "social"; at this point, some sort of institutional intercession is not just necessary but right.

I'm fine with making the sorts of distinction Bedell suggests, but I'm not fine with the protect businesses at all cost mantra strug advocates.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree. Once the consequences are no longer solely social, it is a different story. But removing social consequences by hiding everything dirty under a militant blanket is a great way to keep true discrimination alive and thriving in the worst possible places (and in the worst possible ways). Most revolutions start at the social level. If you remove that option...
 
zitothebrave said:
It's not really going back to any argument. I don't think that discriminating on someone because of anything they identify themselves as is cool. But your profession isn't.

That said, I don't think I've ever met someone who's been discriminated for being a banker or working as part of the MIC.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is. You are going back and saying that because it is genetic, then to refuse them service is discriminatory.
 
BedellBrave said:
Yeah it is. You are going back and saying that because it is genetic, then to refuse them service is discriminatory.
Click to expand...

Well, I do believe that it isn't a choice for almost all homosexuals. Your sexuality is not something you generally actively choose. Not saying some don't, but your own sexuality is just that your own. And I don't believe no matter what your sexual preference is you should be discriminated upon.

That said, comparing a profession to a sexual preference is still apple and oranges, wouldn't normally give you a serious response. But I'm bored and into discussions.
 
So itt I learned that gays are born gay except that some aren't, but I'm still not sure if I figured out why it really matters in a political sense.
 
weso1 said:
So itt I learned that gays are born gay except that some aren't, but I'm still not sure if I figured out why it really matters in a political sense.
Click to expand...

well bedell from the start successfully changed the topic to debate that instead of the topic being about so called christians doing the opposite of how Jesus would act on this issue
 
BedellBrave said:
Could a baker refuse to make a wedding cake for a Roman Catholic-Caucasian guy and his Muslim-Caucasian girlfriend because of the baker's conviction that two people of different faiths shouldn't marry?
Click to expand...

Personally my opinion is no, but you're still at apples to oranges. If your thing is making wedding cakes (which most bakers aren't so they have a reason for refusal I'm sure) then you should be doing that unless you have too much work to do.

Again there's really only 2 options here, either you're for discrimination protection or against it. You can then argue where you want to go between those 2 as for what you think should be protected. As someone who's you know, not locked in the dark ages, sexuality is generally something that you are predisposed to become. No amount of teaching, shaming, etc. is going to change who you are inside. It may change how you act, but not who you are. And for that reason I think sexuality in any of it's forms should be protected. I do debate on the ability of business to refuse. I go back and forth on it. While I want to support everyone's rights, I know that for just about 200 years of our country's approx 250 year existence that people were treated substandardly and that lead to many many problems. Most that we're still dealing with repercussions today. So knowing that, I have to wonder if we allowed business to run as it wants to if we wouldn't be right back where we were? So for that reason I yoyo, right to be a bigot in business vs betterment of society.
 
goldfly said:
well bedell from the start successfully changed the topic to debate that instead of the topic being about so called christians doing the opposite of how Jesus would act on this issue
Click to expand...

It is really funny/sad how these people treat others like garbage in the name of their religion...yaaa that's what jesus would have wanted you guys to do, right? such hypocrites.
 
zitothebrave said:
Well, I do believe that it isn't a choice for almost all homosexuals. Your sexuality is not something you generally actively choose. Not saying some don't, but your own sexuality is just that your own. And I don't believe no matter what your sexual preference is you should be discriminated upon.

That said, comparing a profession to a sexual preference is still apple and oranges, wouldn't normally give you a serious response. But I'm bored and into discussions.
Click to expand...

If you base your argument on genetics, then it would be permissible to refuse serving those of whom it was a matter of choice.
 
zitothebrave said:
Personally my opinion is no, but you're still at apples to oranges. If your thing is making wedding cakes (which most bakers aren't so they have a reason for refusal I'm sure) then you should be doing that unless you have too much work to do.

Again there's really only 2 options here, either you're for discrimination protection or against it. You can then argue where you want to go between those 2 as for what you think should be protected. As someone who's you know, not locked in the dark ages, sexuality is generally something that you are predisposed to become. No amount of teaching, shaming, etc. is going to change who you are inside. It may change how you act, but not who you are. And for that reason I think sexuality in any of it's forms should be protected. I do debate on the ability of business to refuse. I go back and forth on it. While I want to support everyone's rights, I know that for just about 200 years of our country's approx 250 year existence that people were treated substandardly and that lead to many many problems. Most that we're still dealing with repercussions today. So knowing that, I have to wonder if we allowed business to run as it wants to if we wouldn't be right back where we were? So for that reason I yoyo, right to be a bigot in business vs betterment of society.
Click to expand...

So your position moves from a genetic one to something else.

Your second paragraph was too long for me to read. I'm tired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top