(04-06-2015 10:09 AM)djsfw57 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-05-2015 10:53 PM)PTLROCK Wrote: [ -> ]Discrimination is unacceptable, but disrespecting someone's religious beliefs is as well.
And THAT is exactly the problem I have with organized religion. I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church in Texas, and I can tell you from a lifetime of personal experience, that Christians are the WORST about disrespecting the religious beliefs of others. That is exactly why I washed my hands of the whole situation. Too damn hypocritical.
Yea thats why they are running around in Nigeria shooting up Muslim Students... Oh wait....
Please *STOP* with the hyperbole.
(04-06-2015 08:49 AM)PTLROCK Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2015 08:19 AM)Rocket Pirate Wrote: [ -> ]I think you're mixing up two issues. The gay marriage issue is marriage in the eyes of the state. Most gay couples don't care if their marriage is accepted by any church. Just like atheist and agnostic straight couples can get married in all 50 states, yet don't care if any church recognizes their marriage.
I completely understand your point.
To your point, anyone suing a church, a caterer, a photographer for declining to be involved in "any particular event contrary to their religious beliefs" is wrong. It is very likely there are other businesses that may want to participate in the event.
I believe this is what the legislation is about, and has been rightly modified to elliminate the risk of discrimination.
Churches are not in the same category as caterers or photographers. A church is allowed to discriminate when it comes to the functions that are part of religious teaching. For example, a Christian church could refuse to hire a Jew to be pastor of the church, and a Jewish temple could refuse to hire a Christian to be a rabbi. However, the church (or temple) cannot discriminate in hiring someone for an entirely non-religious function, such as a janitor or bus driver. So no church, in Indiana or elsewhere, will be forced to be involved in a wedding that goes against the teachings of that church. The Indiana law was meant to apply to non-religious institutions.
(I'm not taking a side here, just trying to shed some light.)
(04-06-2015 02:42 PM)Dwight Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2015 08:49 AM)PTLROCK Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2015 08:19 AM)Rocket Pirate Wrote: [ -> ]I think you're mixing up two issues. The gay marriage issue is marriage in the eyes of the state. Most gay couples don't care if their marriage is accepted by any church. Just like atheist and agnostic straight couples can get married in all 50 states, yet don't care if any church recognizes their marriage.
I completely understand your point.
To your point, anyone suing a church, a caterer, a photographer for declining to be involved in "any particular event contrary to their religious beliefs" is wrong. It is very likely there are other businesses that may want to participate in the event.
I believe this is what the legislation is about, and has been rightly modified to elliminate the risk of discrimination.
Churches are not in the same category as caterers or photographers. A church is allowed to discriminate when it comes to the functions that are part of religious teaching. For example, a Christian church could refuse to hire a Jew to be pastor of the church, and a Jewish temple could refuse to hire a Christian to be a rabbi. However, the church (or temple) cannot discriminate in hiring someone for an entirely non-religious function, such as a janitor or bus driver. So no church, in Indiana or elsewhere, will be forced to be involved in a wedding that goes against the teachings of that church. The Indiana law was meant to apply to non-religious institutions.
(I'm not taking a side here, just trying to shed some light.)
Churches and ordained ministers can also choose not to marry a gay couple where gay marriage is legal. Heck, churches and ordained ministers can do the same with straight couples. But a justice of the peace or any other governmental figure who has to process a marriage license cannot pick and choose which they will process if the couple can legally marry under state law. Those people who have chosen to not process licenses of
interracial couples (just a few years ago) and gay couples have found themselves out of jobs.
(04-06-2015 02:42 PM)Dwight Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2015 08:49 AM)PTLROCK Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2015 08:19 AM)Rocket Pirate Wrote: [ -> ]I think you're mixing up two issues. The gay marriage issue is marriage in the eyes of the state. Most gay couples don't care if their marriage is accepted by any church. Just like atheist and agnostic straight couples can get married in all 50 states, yet don't care if any church recognizes their marriage.
I completely understand your point.
To your point, anyone suing a church, a caterer, a photographer for declining to be involved in "any particular event contrary to their religious beliefs" is wrong. It is very likely there are other businesses that may want to participate in the event.
I believe this is what the legislation is about, and has been rightly modified to elliminate the risk of discrimination.
Churches are not in the same category as caterers or photographers. A church is allowed to discriminate when it comes to the functions that are part of religious teaching. For example, a Christian church could refuse to hire a Jew to be pastor of the church, and a Jewish temple could refuse to hire a Christian to be a rabbi. However, the church (or temple) cannot discriminate in hiring someone for an entirely non-religious function, such as a janitor or bus driver. So no church, in Indiana or elsewhere, will be forced to be involved in a wedding that goes against the teachings of that church. The Indiana law was meant to apply to non-religious institutions.
(I'm not taking a side here, just trying to shed some light.)
I appreciate the insight. Thanks
(04-06-2015 10:09 AM)djsfw57 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-05-2015 10:53 PM)PTLROCK Wrote: [ -> ]Discrimination is unacceptable, but disrespecting someone's religious beliefs is as well.
And THAT is exactly the problem I have with organized religion. I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church in Texas, and I can tell you from a lifetime of personal experience, that Christians are the WORST about disrespecting the religious beliefs of others. That is exactly why I washed my hands of the whole situation. Too damn hypocritical.
Which situation, organized (denominational) religion or religion? Faith?
By definition, religion is an arrogant belief I guess. The word "worst" might not apply to any religion. As others have noted, your frustration might be because you've mostly only experienced Christian dominated cultures?
Religion is so core to what most of us are, we mostly understand there has to be tolerance and compromise to allow others to live in peace with their beliefs in larger powers as well as their beliefs in who and what they are but I think there also has to be some allowance that people need to be truthful to that and still be able to make a living.
It's going to be an interesting debate. I have faith that the law in Indiana is well intended and made in hopes of finding that compromise that permits people to live their faith and live who they believe themselves to be.
Societies don't tend to function very well when businesses are allowed to pick and choose what "kinds" of people they serve. There have been enough examples of that through the centuries and continuing today, worldwide and in the US, that should illustrate that pretty well. The US before the civil rights movement is a prime example. Many people used religious arguments to justify the treatment on minorities back then, and it would continue today if the laws weren't changed. If a business can legally justify not providing services to a gay couple, then there isn't anything preventing from saying they won't provide services to an interfaith couple ... and then an interracial couple ... and then, well...
The original federal law was intended to protect the religious practices of individuals and religious organizations ... not those of businesses, and not those practices that were discriminatory. Businesses need to be neutral in order for the economy and society to function as intended.
(04-04-2015 06:49 PM)eastisbest Wrote: [ -> ]It wasn't the a-religious, the atheists or agnostics on the front lines of the civil rights debates and battles. It was those proclaiming the rights and value of God's ultimate creation. It was mainly those countries that claim strong Christian beliefs. Likewise, the current debates. The lead for "gay rights" isn't being found in China or India or the M.E. or Israel or any other center of the world's major non-Christian religions and most certainly not in generally a-religious countries like Russia.
Russia is hardly an a-religious country. Recent surveys have indicated <10% of the population consider themselves atheists. Something more than 80% identify as Christian, most being orthodox.
(04-06-2015 06:32 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2015 06:49 PM)eastisbest Wrote: [ -> ]It wasn't the a-religious, the atheists or agnostics on the front lines of the civil rights debates and battles. It was those proclaiming the rights and value of God's ultimate creation. It was mainly those countries that claim strong Christian beliefs. Likewise, the current debates. The lead for "gay rights" isn't being found in China or India or the M.E. or Israel or any other center of the world's major non-Christian religions and most certainly not in generally a-religious countries like Russia.
Russia is hardly an a-religious country. Recent surveys have indicated <10% of the population consider themselves atheists. Something more than 80% identify as Christian, most being orthodox.
The links I looked at put Russia pretty much at the low end, relatively speaking.
Religiosity Index
Fairly well supported by other sources. Could be they were distinguishing between belief and practice?
Regardless, fairly immaterial to the point I think.
(04-06-2015 06:07 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote: [ -> ]Societies don't tend to function very well when businesses are allowed to pick and choose what "kinds" of people they serve. There have been enough examples of that through the centuries and continuing today, worldwide and in the US, that should illustrate that pretty well. The US before the civil rights movement is a prime example. Many people used religious arguments to justify the treatment on minorities back then, and it would continue today if the laws weren't changed. If a business can legally justify not providing services to a gay couple, then there isn't anything preventing from saying they won't provide services to an interfaith couple ... and then an interracial couple ... and then, well...
The original federal law was intended to protect the religious practices of individuals and religious organizations ... not those of businesses, and not those practices that were discriminatory. Businesses need to be neutral in order for the economy and society to function as intended.
Another school of thought is that the market place will continue to work just fine. If one business declines a job, there is another one that will take it, and if another business does not exist, an opportunity is created for someone to start one.
Self employed people should not be required by law to accept jobs that they do not wish to take. "Discrimination" in this context is little more than a buzz word. If declining a job you do not care to accept is discrimination, then being forced to perform it is slavery.
(04-06-2015 06:07 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote: [ -> ]Societies don't tend to function very well when businesses are allowed to pick and choose what "kinds" of people they serve.
Nor do they work very well when the individual liberty of one group has to take a back seat to the desires of a more politically popular group.
Quote:Many people used religious arguments to justify the treatment on minorities back then, and it would continue today if the laws weren't changed.
Any many others used secular scientific reasoning to posit that whites were more "evolved". Hence the racist tradition of the noble savage.
Quote:If a business can legally justify not providing services to a gay couple, then there isn't anything preventing from saying they won't provide services to an interfaith couple ... and then an interracial couple ... and then, well...
As someone in an interracial marriage I would gladly surrender my "right" to a wedding cake for the right to practice my faith.
Quote:The original federal law was intended to protect the religious practices of individuals and religious organizations ... not those of businesses, and not those practices that were discriminatory.
Both citizens united and the hobby lobby decision show that it's nowhere near as simple as you are promoting it to be.
(04-06-2015 05:05 PM)eastisbest Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2015 10:09 AM)djsfw57 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-05-2015 10:53 PM)PTLROCK Wrote: [ -> ]Discrimination is unacceptable, but disrespecting someone's religious beliefs is as well.
And THAT is exactly the problem I have with organized religion. I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church in Texas, and I can tell you from a lifetime of personal experience, that Christians are the WORST about disrespecting the religious beliefs of others. That is exactly why I washed my hands of the whole situation. Too damn hypocritical.
Which situation, organized (denominational) religion or religion? Faith?
By definition, religion is an arrogant belief I guess. The word "worst" might not apply to any religion. As others have noted, your frustration might be because you've mostly only experienced Christian dominated cultures?
Religion is so core to what most of us are, we mostly understand there has to be tolerance and compromise to allow others to live in peace with their beliefs in larger powers as well as their beliefs in who and what they are but I think there also has to be some allowance that people need to be truthful to that and still be able to make a living.
It's going to be an interesting debate. I have faith that the law in Indiana is well intended and made in hopes of finding that compromise that permits people to live their faith and live who they believe themselves to be.
please, have faith in your god, have faith in the balance of the universe, have faith in the rockets. don't have faith in state legislators. especially, when they are trying to make an ideological point. the intent of this law is (at least in part) to give a middle finger to the greater acceptance of and civil rights for gay people.
(04-07-2015 05:10 AM)pono Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2015 05:05 PM)eastisbest Wrote: [ -> ]Religion is so core to what most of us are, we mostly understand there has to be tolerance and compromise to allow others to live in peace with their beliefs in larger powers as well as their beliefs in who and what they are but I think there also has to be some allowance that people need to be truthful to that and still be able to make a living.
It's going to be an interesting debate. I have faith that the law in Indiana is well intended and made in hopes of finding that compromise that permits people to live their faith and live who they believe themselves to be.
please, have faith in your god, have faith in the balance of the universe, have faith in the rockets. don't have faith in state legislators. especially, when they are trying to make an ideological point. the intent of this law is (at least in part) to give a middle finger to the greater acceptance of and civil rights for gay people.
I kind of giggled when you suggest where I should place my faith, when you couldn't find the time to respond to my points or counterpoints in my first response to you and when you haven't in any way supported your comments on the "intent" of the law or why a few peoples' intent should even matter. You gained absolutely zero weight in where I would place my faith.
Any law can be used maliciously or righteously.
A baker in Indiana can now refuse to do a KKK wedding and have legal back-up. A backer that specializes in "gay" weddings can refuse to do something they feel outside their expertise or something that crosses a moral line for them. A baker can refuse to cater a Westboro event, without fear of civil rights lawsuit.
While understandably the historically ostracized gay community would have some nervousness, this law will ultimately be what they help make of it. Most people in business, want business. There's a lot of possible win-win in this law if the people of Indiana are permitted to hash it out without outsiders grandstanding for political, not social gain. What Cuomo is doing is getting in the way of positive outcome. What WILL likely encourage a positive outcome is a patient and reasoned response from the gay and gay supporting community.
As I wrote in my first response to you, "intent" matters little to me. What the PEOPLE of Indiana eventually make of the law is what matters. Besides which, neither you nor the opposition to the law have even bothered to back up statements that its intent is to target a segment of the community as opposed to clarify rights for all the community.
Even with the heavy outside response against the law and against all peoples of Indiana because they reside in a state that passed the law, this opposition doesn't seem to be able to come up with exactly an avalanche of "Now I get to screw over gay people" comments.
We have on the other hand read not just economic threats but physical threats against businesses that stated their faith would preclude them from performing certain business services.
This law passed in nearly half the states without this hub-bub from NY. That gives me reason to believe Cuomo is more interested in political posturing than social construction. It tells me there is a coming Presidential election.
Most people just want to be able to live their faith, interfering and bothering with others as little as possible. People also need to make a living. There's going to be some conflict. I see the people of Indiana taking an approach to that conflict much more peaceably and respectfully than is the outside opposition to the law.
(04-06-2015 11:11 PM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2015 06:07 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote: [ -> ]Societies don't tend to function very well when businesses are allowed to pick and choose what "kinds" of people they serve. There have been enough examples of that through the centuries and continuing today, worldwide and in the US, that should illustrate that pretty well. The US before the civil rights movement is a prime example. Many people used religious arguments to justify the treatment on minorities back then, and it would continue today if the laws weren't changed. If a business can legally justify not providing services to a gay couple, then there isn't anything preventing from saying they won't provide services to an interfaith couple ... and then an interracial couple ... and then, well...
The original federal law was intended to protect the religious practices of individuals and religious organizations ... not those of businesses, and not those practices that were discriminatory. Businesses need to be neutral in order for the economy and society to function as intended.
Another school of thought is that the market place will continue to work just fine. If one business declines a job, there is another one that will take it, and if another business does not exist, an opportunity is created for someone to start one.
Self employed people should not be required by law to accept jobs that they do not wish to take. "Discrimination" in this context is little more than a buzz word. If declining a job you do not care to accept is discrimination, then being forced to perform it is slavery.
Unfortunately history does not seem to support that view. When governments allow people to discriminate for whatever reason, the discrimination always seems to have a tendency to become institutionalized. Other businesses do not tend to fill in the gaps. Again, just look at the US pre-civil rights legislation. And the issues from those days can't be blamed on atheists, because for the vast majority of this history of this country, atheists were treated very much like minorities used to be treated. In some places they are still treated that way.
To compare having to serve the kinds of people one doesn't like to slavery makes no sense. They are not even remotely related. Slaves have no choice, the people you describe have numerous choices available to them.
(04-07-2015 05:10 AM)pono Wrote: [ -> ]please, have faith in your god, have faith in the balance of the universe, have faith in the rockets. don't have faith in state legislators. especially, when they are trying to make an ideological point. the intent of this law is (at least in part) to give a middle finger to the greater acceptance of and civil rights for gay people.
Agree to disagree. I believe it's reasonable to assume this was about religious liberty given the rash of states targeting small businesses who did everything right except cater an event which goes against their faith.
(04-07-2015 07:19 AM)northcoastRocket Wrote: [ -> ]To compare having to serve the kinds of people one doesn't like to slavery makes no sense. They are not even remotely related. Slaves have no choice, the people you describe have numerous choices available to them.
The choice of losing your lively hood is not much of a choice.
