Total posts: 1,320
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The situation is that one person sees another as immoral for reasons that are beyond their control (race, disability, sexual orientation etc.) and are using their religious beliefs to justify refusing them service even if they are perfectly reasonable paying customers that are doing nothing objectionable beyond being who they are.
Okay, thanks. So that would just leave the first section.
In one situation, people have apparently managed to convince the majority of society that it needs a business license from them, probably enforce something against the minority who don't want or have business licenses, and are now acting as a gatekeeper to people they deem unfit. In the other, someone is minding their own business, apparently to do with wedding services, as they see fit.
If the case were that the customer were being unreasonable or a financial arrangement cannot be agreed upon then no "religious freedom" act would be necessary as we already have legislation that deals with those issues and we would not be having this discussion at all.
You would think, but what you are saying is tantemanout to justification for repealing the Bill of Rights. Hopefully it is unnecessary, but history proves that we should not trust that to be the case. A minority interest group is going to do what it needs to do, and that its interest is not founded on religious liberty, which is at risk. Its not all that different from the perspective introduced in the OP. This has been explained once to you in one way. I would think you would understand that abuse and corruption is a known issue by now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It is a matter of whether the government is justified. Even blatant racism would not technically be hurting anything on a level between individuals since the result is that no agreement is reached, so it is not like anyone is actually committing something which might resemble a crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
For example, if they are ignorant, and using their power unjustifiably to harass people and run them out of business.Would this include refusing them the services needed to run their buisness? (For example refusing someone a buisness licence because they are homosexual?)I agree. How is refusing someone the services necessary to perform a wedding different?
While I don't know why they are being refused, in one situation, people have apparently managed to convince the majority of society that it needs a business license from them, probably enforce something against the minority who don't want or have business licenses, and are now acting as a gatekeeper to people they deem unfit. In the other, someone is minding their own business, apparently to do with wedding services, as they see fit.
For the second one, I'm not sure if you literally mean refusing to entertain service for someone like, "Joe, I've tried to be reasonable with you, and I've had enough! You need to leave." or as if they are being requested a service where they haven't been able to negotiate a mutual agreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
For example, if they are ignorant, and using their power unjustifiably to harass people and run them out of business.Would this include refusing them the services needed to run their buisness? (For example refusing someone a buisness licence because they are homosexual?)
Probably. Don't over think it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
For example, if they are ignorant, and using their power unjustifiably to harass people and run them out of business.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You must (EITHER) serve the public (OR) declare yourself a private club. It's that simple.
WOW, you went there. No, my business is not a public utility. I do not work for "the public". I am open to the public.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ignorant savages? That sounds dehumanizing.By what world view?If someone called all blacks or all Americans or all southern Baptists ignorant savages would that be dehumanizing to any of those groups? If the answer in any of those cases is yes then it is dehumanizing in your world view.
Oh yeah, definitely in that context. I to not intend to be conflated as such.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You are talking about what ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages claim. Why should anyone take any notice of those primitive beliefs
You would have to take notice to justify calling people ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages wouldn't you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ignorant savages? That sounds dehumanizing.
By what world view?
It is the guided process of dehumanization that I am worried about. It doesn't matter if that comes on the guise of racism or homophobia or religious/cultural purity.I have been fairly clear about my fears if these laws take effect (that some classes of people will be legally denied the services that should be taken for granted.What specifically are you afraid will happen if these laws do not get passed?
Of course, there is no fault in keeping a check on such laws. What some may not understand is that people who are religious share the same kind of concerns for abuse for their institutions of worship as well as their government. Many Americans families have a history of enduring or fleeing from religious persecution, and they have an interest made known, just like people who identify as gay have an interest made known. In saying that either interest could be catered by a corrupt members of government and used abusively if not kept in check. Its not unusual behavior in politics to put up a sign of good faith, or sort of shield protecting a legitimate interest of government before trusting representatives to facilitate progress.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Since "Motorcycle Club" is not a protected class, this would seem perfectly reasonable.
Poorly stated. Someone who belongs to a motorcycle club of a member is a member of the protected class, American, and it is still not legal to discriminate on the basis if their race.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It may not be a religious exception we are talking about if we are simply restraining the ignorant savages from abusing power in government. There are no concrete examples of a religious exemption demonstrated in this thread to my knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And I quote "(Four others involved "unarmed citizens [who] confronted or persuaded the shooter to end the shooting.")" So it would seem that the courage to take a stand is the deciding factor and not personal armament.
This should be backed with verifiable evidence for those interested. Its true, in such an event, the main thing is that someone does something proactive to foil the attack. It doesn't even need to stop the assailant(s) to make a considerable difference. That said, something like a gun could more often prove persuasive at that point. If someone is armed they're better equipped to engage on their own terms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Is our stated goal preventing gun violence or preserving imperfect institutions? The two may be mutually exclusive.
Not necessarily. I don't recall you and I having a stated goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
What do you think of these writers' analysis of gun zone statistics?Or to summarise,There is little evidence to suggest that mass shooters choose particular locations based on gun free zones. Shooters typically choose targets based on personal connection and/or the people they are targeting. (Which is why there are school shootingss and not gun store shootings).Lott's study, which is the study used when claiming "all" or "most" shootings occur in gun free zones is criticized to have casted a too wide of a net when defining "g un free zo pne". And hence, inflated values.Other studies exist which show dramatically less shootings occurring in gun free zones. These differences are due to the definitions of mass shootings and gun free zones used
Yeah, we should have to consider why it is designated "gun free". Apparently someone has decided there is some risk already, whether they finally assessed correctly or not. Still though, your average dirtbag is not going to be so disinclined to a soft target. To a perp, it is like one less thing to go wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Are you suggesting that the ownership of small arms would in any way regulate the tyranny of a government which can field a multi million dollar multi branch military?
Any incurred cost is considered in an invasion. During WWII our country was (mostly) trying to maintain neutrality while our future enemies were focused on invasion. The Japanese considered an American invasion, and the Germans considered invading Switzerland. At the time, both countries could have been overwhelmed at first, but were already capable enough of effective resistance. As democracy spreads, it becomes even more difficult to sustain a conflict to the point of victory. The people may not necessarily be capable of defeating malevolent actors, and in that case, they may resist and present a formidable and legitimate (sovereign) alternative until supported by a professional military. These are some pretty nasty scenarios with standing armies, where consolidation of power has been allowed to festure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I do not necessarily support either but both are technically examples of "Well regulated melitias". Perhaps the question should not be "what does the 2nd amendment mean?" But rather "is the 2nd amendment efficacious?"
What does our constitution mean is always an important question, otherwise we have no claim to the rule of law. Of course it has the desired effect but the amendment can only take so much of a beating before losing the leverage. I suspect by the time it is no longer recognized that it may already be too late for the youngest generations to salvage what is left of their formerly imperfect, but respectable institutions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well, can't say I don't respect an honest effort to surrender the 2a in favor of the military industrial complex, and a police state, and whatever ends those are necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well, can't say I don't respect an honest effort to surrender the 2a in favor of the military industrial complex, and a police state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No one is born that stupid. Read your constitution some time in plain English. Consider the people who wrote it, and consider why they wrote it. Otherwise you are taking the word of a national liability. Originally the 2nd amendment was held against the federal government, which to this day should have the strongest limitations against infringement. With the 14th amendment, the right was intended to be incorporated into state jurisdiction. The state and federal government may be considered differently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"
The militia was composed of all able bodied males not exempt from service, whether it is well regulated or not. Today the supreme court would likely include women.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Perhaps the secret is to keep guns out of the hands of as many potential mass shooters (aka the general public) as possible.
...Not for sale...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's something about a respectable man that would rightly be willing to kick your ass that calms people the hell down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Is your argument that people should be able to claim religious objections that are made up on the spot?
I don't think so.
If not and there is no way to separate legitimate religious objections from false/made up ones then how do you suggest we determine which objections should be protected?
Generally, all objections are protected insofar as a practical accommodation can be arranged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Text is useful as a common basis, a testament or a proof, or a check on reason. The Bible is not an instruction manual.Is your argument that people should be able to claim religious objections that are made up on the spot? If not how should we determine if a religious objection is legitimate without a specific corresponding religious text?
If "we" is the government, then we don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Gun owners who believe that Muhammad is a messenger of God are like Muslims
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Text is useful as a common basis, a testament or a proof, or a check on reason. The Bible is not an instruction manual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you open-to-the-public?
Each exchange is based upon mutual agreement between two or more private entities regardless of whether or not business is held opened to the public.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Out of curiosity, why is cash of significance to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you only say "Idonwanna" to the gays (or one of the other 9 protected classes), then you might be dragged into court.
American is the protected class. A more appropriate choice of wording should be used for the modes of classification
U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information (added in 2008).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Discrimination is not illegal. Discrimination on the basis of someone's race is illegal.Do you figure that might be because it's way easier to say "This person is black" than it is to say "this person is gay"? I get that discrimination isn't illegal except on some bases, I'm just confused as to what the objection against protecting the minority group is if they're gay.
I don't mean to disregard history in saying that the Civil Rights Act does not protect a group, such as "gays" or "blacks". It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of "race". While I don't want too go deeply into the rationale for civil rights, people can assume that everyone should get a relatively fair shot, shouldn't be held back on account of something they are born into. Equality of opportunity is an appropriate phrase. I'm not sure what objection you are referring to.
And more to the point, how does a religious person get to claim religious expression ONLY if they're discriminating against gays, and not against people who are divorced, who eat shrimp, who have pre marital straight sex, who work on Sundays, etc etc etc.
Firstly, you shouldn't claim that someone who is "black" is discriminated against on the basis of race because they are requesting a racial service. Secondly, the idea that all people who do not abide by your religion should not receive service would seem to practically necessitate a closed system of business to begin with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Discrimination is not illegal. Discrimination on the basis of someone's race is illegal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That sounds like "guilty until proven innocent", and it's not helped by presumptively assuming the motive
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Again, what if he decided "NO BLACKS" was his policy? Then if a group of his local neighbors were disgusted by him, and decided to express this peaceably by demonstrating in front of his store every single day for discriminating against a fellow citizen, you would say he does not have the right to ask the government to intervene on his behalf?
This is not analogous. I am not well versed in the particulars of how such disputes are settled but take no issue with outlawing harassment, or due process.
Again, what if he decided "NO BLACKS" was his policy?
This policy outlawed by the Civil Rights Act
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
He was persecuted. A panel or whatever were apparently disgusted by him or his faith and prosecuted unjustly.
Created:
So why is Trump so in fear of releasing his taxes now?
Just a guess, but maybe he thinks it is not required of him to win the election.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
The owner of Masterpiece was persecuted by the people working for the state of Colorado.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Google Translate is the bomb.com
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
The equalizer argument is designed to appeal to liberals.
Equality is the reason the 14th amendment was added to the constitution by liberals, in part so that it would be harder to disarm select groups of people, with an equal recognition of rights under the law of the land. It's not "designed to appeal" to liberals, as if the Republicans were/are throwing a bone to liberals... Assuming you view people as free and equal in respect of one another, but not in circumstance, it is liberal. Most of the people we today call 'conservatives' are liberals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Of greater significance in my opinion is that kind of person lives in a fantasy world where every country does not employ firearms for lawful use. Firearms are pee shooters to the lawyer burdened with the duties of protecting a country. Do they really need to have a complete monopoly on force? First we need to talk about how to keep weapons that level buildings or even entire cities out of reach of lawyers, then maybe we can talk about the pee shooters.
Created:
Posted in:
Article - Pittsburg Study
According to this study, over 80% of the perps possessed their firearm illegally
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
On escalating domestic disputes, one might ask, why would someone in illegal possession of a firearm not get reported? How sure are we that one willing to illegally possess a firearm would rely solely on legal channels to obtain a firearm?
is your position that one hundred percent of people who are denied a gun via background checks will run out and get one illegally? if that's not your position, wouldn't not having a gun lower the chances that someone will kill in a spontaneous act of passion domestic dispute?
An additional preponderance, could the additional legal leverage against an abusive associate be used to counter the potential option to use of lethal force without resorting to it? It ought to. We also know that the vast majority of violent gun crimes are not fatal, as cited by the DOJ https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That is what Christians have believed for the last 2000 years. Sex and Marriage are in a sense, inseparable. Sex is a part of marriage, and its not right to use people for sex. What kind of explanation are you looking for?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Please give a rigorous definition of sexual immorality.
Sex outside of marriage
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
You realize that the majority of Americans currently have issues with sexual immorality at some point in their life, right?Yes. Virtually none of them are going to heaven. I think this is tyrannical of God, but it's just the way it is.The verses I presented said any male who has sex with other men won't go to heaven.
It seems possible that is the case. We should make no claims of such knowledge, and it is not our place to judge. Understand, just because you have sinned that does not mean you will not be in heaven. But, surely, not everyone who says Lord will inherit the kingdom of heaven. We all fall short of the glory of God, which is part of how miraculous the New Testament is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If the standard is applied to differentiate between one thing and another, resulting in different outcomes, then naturally it is going to be discriminatory. In post 26 its as if you contend that if the standard involves only one discriminatory act, rather than two or more, then that is not discrimination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
You realize that the majority of Americans currently have issues with sexual immorality at some point in their life, right?
God doesn't allow gays in heaven.
Why would you read scripture that has no mention of "gay", and spread falsehoods in the name of God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The law only brings those proven guilty to justice, which is discriminatory. The equality in process is besides the point of discrimination. I am not sure how you consider that to be of relevance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You are speaking as though discrimination is limited to discrimination on the basis of identity. Discrimination is a necessary aspect of life.
Discrimination: recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
By the way, we could easily make up classes and say that it disproportionately effects those identities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Example - Only upon being proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt with fair trial, should someone go to prison.
Created: