utter crap...
Thread
Posts in chronological order
This is what happens when political correctness meets politcal correctness.
Although not personally religious, I do think religious groups should have a right to practice their religion (within reason) free from fear of persecution.
Likewise, gays should have the same rights. But what happens when the rights of one group conflicts with the rights of another?
I do not smoke, so I do not sit in any smoking rooms. That is my choice. Nor am
I gay - so I do not drink in gay bars. That is also my choice, but I do respect the choices of others.
Personally, I would not stay in a Muslim Hotel, but if I did, I would respect THEIR rules while I lived there, nor would I expect to eat pork pies at a Jewish festival.
I guess what I am saying is that problems only occur when people are both selfish and blinkered and do not care about the rights of others, and I feel that ALL militant groups, whether straight, gay or religious are basically selfish bastards who, while quite happy to complain about their lack of freedoms, are quite happy to trample all over the rights of others.
Although not personally religious, I do think religious groups should have a right to practice their religion (within reason) free from fear of persecution.
Likewise, gays should have the same rights. But what happens when the rights of one group conflicts with the rights of another?
I do not smoke, so I do not sit in any smoking rooms. That is my choice. Nor am
I gay - so I do not drink in gay bars. That is also my choice, but I do respect the choices of others.
Personally, I would not stay in a Muslim Hotel, but if I did, I would respect THEIR rules while I lived there, nor would I expect to eat pork pies at a Jewish festival.
I guess what I am saying is that problems only occur when people are both selfish and blinkered and do not care about the rights of others, and I feel that ALL militant groups, whether straight, gay or religious are basically selfish bastards who, while quite happy to complain about their lack of freedoms, are quite happy to trample all over the rights of others.
To be honest, and I know this is going to seem kind of silly to some of you, but I believe that the law should not prohibit private entities from practicing discrimination if they so desire.
As long as this discrimination is not actively harmful to a particular group, it should be allowed. Every private institution should be allowed to discriminate in this manner, except in particular instances such as employment, where discrimination can actively harm a group in the aggregate.
Don't get me wrong, I am completely against discrimination. But to me this is rather an issue of what the law should and should not do, and how much regulatory power the government is entitled.
Does this make sense? I may not have gotten my ideas perfect in this quick post. Discuss.
As long as this discrimination is not actively harmful to a particular group, it should be allowed. Every private institution should be allowed to discriminate in this manner, except in particular instances such as employment, where discrimination can actively harm a group in the aggregate.
Don't get me wrong, I am completely against discrimination. But to me this is rather an issue of what the law should and should not do, and how much regulatory power the government is entitled.
Does this make sense? I may not have gotten my ideas perfect in this quick post. Discuss.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Does this make sense? I may not have gotten my ideas perfect in this quick post. Discuss.
[/QUOTE]
It does make sense, but I disagree. I understand it on some level, however, a printer refusing to print something going against his/her religion should then, IMO, be classified as a Christian Press, or some such thing. Maybe there isn't a clearcut answer for every profession but if people have specific religious rules they live by and cannot interact with the public at large - as is - then perhaps they should not be in that chosen field. Just like the pharmacists I mentioned in an earlier post. If they object to dispensing certain medications then perhaps they shouldn't be pharmacists OR they should work in a Christian hospital. It's not about limiting their choice, but about them working in a field where they can abide by their religious morals and not offend/affect the rest of the community.
Does this make sense? I may not have gotten my ideas perfect in this quick post. Discuss.
[/QUOTE]
It does make sense, but I disagree. I understand it on some level, however, a printer refusing to print something going against his/her religion should then, IMO, be classified as a Christian Press, or some such thing. Maybe there isn't a clearcut answer for every profession but if people have specific religious rules they live by and cannot interact with the public at large - as is - then perhaps they should not be in that chosen field. Just like the pharmacists I mentioned in an earlier post. If they object to dispensing certain medications then perhaps they shouldn't be pharmacists OR they should work in a Christian hospital. It's not about limiting their choice, but about them working in a field where they can abide by their religious morals and not offend/affect the rest of the community.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Does this make sense? I may not have gotten my ideas perfect in this quick post. Discuss.
[/QUOTE]
It does make sense, but I disagree. I understand it on some level, however, a printer refusing to print something going against his/her religion should then, IMO, be classified as a Christian Press, or some such thing. Maybe there isn't a clearcut answer for every profession but if people have specific religious rules they live by and cannot interact with the public at large - as is - then perhaps they should not be in that chosen field. Just like the pharmacists I mentioned in an earlier post. If they object to dispensing certain medications then perhaps they shouldn't be pharmacists OR they should work in a Christian hospital. It's not about limiting their choice, but about them working in a field where they can abide by their religious morals and not offend/affect the rest of the community.
[/QUOTE]
Amen!
Does this make sense? I may not have gotten my ideas perfect in this quick post. Discuss.
[/QUOTE]
It does make sense, but I disagree. I understand it on some level, however, a printer refusing to print something going against his/her religion should then, IMO, be classified as a Christian Press, or some such thing. Maybe there isn't a clearcut answer for every profession but if people have specific religious rules they live by and cannot interact with the public at large - as is - then perhaps they should not be in that chosen field. Just like the pharmacists I mentioned in an earlier post. If they object to dispensing certain medications then perhaps they shouldn't be pharmacists OR they should work in a Christian hospital. It's not about limiting their choice, but about them working in a field where they can abide by their religious morals and not offend/affect the rest of the community.
[/QUOTE]
Amen!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=009966>&#8592Freya&#8594 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If she ever kisses you, I'll turn you into a Prince.
...
Prince of the land of STENCH! Muahaha (walks off)[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha, I love that film. (Probably too much)[/QUOTE]
Loving Labrynth too much simply isn't possible!
...
Prince of the land of STENCH! Muahaha (walks off)[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha, I love that film. (Probably too much)[/QUOTE]
Loving Labrynth too much simply isn't possible!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Does this make sense? I may not have gotten my ideas perfect in this quick post. Discuss.
[/QUOTE]
It does make sense, but I disagree. I understand it on some level, however, a printer refusing to print something going against his/her religion should then, IMO, be classified as a Christian Press, or some such thing. Maybe there isn't a clearcut answer for every profession but if people have specific religious rules they live by and cannot interact with the public at large - as is - then perhaps they should not be in that chosen field. Just like the pharmacists I mentioned in an earlier post. If they object to dispensing certain medications then perhaps they shouldn't be pharmacists OR they should work in a Christian hospital. It's not about limiting their choice, but about them working in a field where they can abide by their religious morals and not offend/affect the rest of the community.
[/QUOTE]
They wouldn't necessarily affect the rest of the community. Not to the degree of infringing upon anyone's rights. Therefore, what you propose limits the rights of business owners, whereas the alternative infringes upon no one's rights.
I can fully understand where you're coming from, but isn't what you suggest just an example of molding a community to your specific morals? It doesn't seem very different from the solutions of religious states. "You can be in the community as long as you don't discriminate," sounds a lot like "you can be in the community as long as you don't have gay sex." Neither gay sex nor discrimination actively infringes upon anyone's rights; it's just a matter of morality, which is entirely subjective.
Does this make sense? I may not have gotten my ideas perfect in this quick post. Discuss.
[/QUOTE]
It does make sense, but I disagree. I understand it on some level, however, a printer refusing to print something going against his/her religion should then, IMO, be classified as a Christian Press, or some such thing. Maybe there isn't a clearcut answer for every profession but if people have specific religious rules they live by and cannot interact with the public at large - as is - then perhaps they should not be in that chosen field. Just like the pharmacists I mentioned in an earlier post. If they object to dispensing certain medications then perhaps they shouldn't be pharmacists OR they should work in a Christian hospital. It's not about limiting their choice, but about them working in a field where they can abide by their religious morals and not offend/affect the rest of the community.
[/QUOTE]
They wouldn't necessarily affect the rest of the community. Not to the degree of infringing upon anyone's rights. Therefore, what you propose limits the rights of business owners, whereas the alternative infringes upon no one's rights.
I can fully understand where you're coming from, but isn't what you suggest just an example of molding a community to your specific morals? It doesn't seem very different from the solutions of religious states. "You can be in the community as long as you don't discriminate," sounds a lot like "you can be in the community as long as you don't have gay sex." Neither gay sex nor discrimination actively infringes upon anyone's rights; it's just a matter of morality, which is entirely subjective.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
They wouldn't necessarily affect the rest of the community. Not to the degree of infringing upon anyone's rights. Therefore, what you propose limits the rights of business owners, whereas the alternative infringes upon no one's rights.
I can fully understand where you're coming from, but isn't what you suggest just an example of molding a community to your specific morals? It doesn't seem very different from the solutions of religious states. "You can be in the community as long as you don't discriminate," sounds a lot like "you can be in the community as long as you don't have gay sex." Neither gay sex nor discrimination actively infringes upon anyone's rights; it's just a matter of morality, which is entirely subjective.[/QUOTE]
I find we disagree a lot, Music Man.
My example is a matter of live and let live. It does not infringe upon the rights of business owners in any way if they have chosen a business that serves the people. In the examples given in the article - hotel owners and printers - my point is clear. They are in the customer service business - not the christian customer service business. THEY, the business owners, have chosen what amounts to be a challenging career since they have decided to pit their moral compass against the vile world around them. It is their choice and it is their right. However, if their personal beliefs prevent a potential customer from purchasing their wares, or staying at their inn, then they are indeed infringing on the rights of that customer.
What you propose would allow the proprietor to determine who s/he deems worthy of her/his services. And that is unacceptable to much of the civilized world...
...or should be.
They wouldn't necessarily affect the rest of the community. Not to the degree of infringing upon anyone's rights. Therefore, what you propose limits the rights of business owners, whereas the alternative infringes upon no one's rights.
I can fully understand where you're coming from, but isn't what you suggest just an example of molding a community to your specific morals? It doesn't seem very different from the solutions of religious states. "You can be in the community as long as you don't discriminate," sounds a lot like "you can be in the community as long as you don't have gay sex." Neither gay sex nor discrimination actively infringes upon anyone's rights; it's just a matter of morality, which is entirely subjective.[/QUOTE]
I find we disagree a lot, Music Man.
My example is a matter of live and let live. It does not infringe upon the rights of business owners in any way if they have chosen a business that serves the people. In the examples given in the article - hotel owners and printers - my point is clear. They are in the customer service business - not the christian customer service business. THEY, the business owners, have chosen what amounts to be a challenging career since they have decided to pit their moral compass against the vile world around them. It is their choice and it is their right. However, if their personal beliefs prevent a potential customer from purchasing their wares, or staying at their inn, then they are indeed infringing on the rights of that customer.
What you propose would allow the proprietor to determine who s/he deems worthy of her/his services. And that is unacceptable to much of the civilized world...
...or should be.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]However, if their personal beliefs prevent a potential customer from purchasing their wares, or staying at their inn, then they are indeed infringing on the rights of that customer.
What you propose would allow the proprietor to determine who s/he deems worthy of her/his services. And that is unacceptable to much of the civilized world...
...or should be.
[/QUOTE]
The only person's rights who are being infringed when a business owner prevents a potential customer from utilizing their services or products is the business owner himself...
A private proprietor most certainly should be able to determine to whom he offers his services to...
What you propose would allow the proprietor to determine who s/he deems worthy of her/his services. And that is unacceptable to much of the civilized world...
...or should be.
[/QUOTE]
The only person's rights who are being infringed when a business owner prevents a potential customer from utilizing their services or products is the business owner himself...
A private proprietor most certainly should be able to determine to whom he offers his services to...
Why in the world can't people just leave other people alone? I don't get why in the world people are so obsessed about what other people are doing behind closed doors....this goes for celebrities and their "marriages", gay couples, unmarried hetero couples....
If people just learned to mind their own business none of this would be an issue. Let's face reality here, people are against homosexual marriage because they against homosexual sex. It all boils down to the fact that they are disgusted by the act itself. It has nothing to do with the people or the relationship, it's the fact that the first thing they think of when they meet a gay couple is gay sex. I may be disgusted by a lot of things that people do, but that doesn't mean that I hate or discriminate against people that do what I think is disgusting. Just let them do whatever they want...it's no skin off my nose, and not anyone else's business.
Interestingly enough, this issue of Where does human loyalty lie, to god or to government, is something has been going on since the Middle Ages at least (and I'm currently taking an independant readings class on the very issue). It will never be resolved, as long as people still have such an idea that they need to be attatched to some kind of religious being that is somehow better than them.
If people just learned to mind their own business none of this would be an issue. Let's face reality here, people are against homosexual marriage because they against homosexual sex. It all boils down to the fact that they are disgusted by the act itself. It has nothing to do with the people or the relationship, it's the fact that the first thing they think of when they meet a gay couple is gay sex. I may be disgusted by a lot of things that people do, but that doesn't mean that I hate or discriminate against people that do what I think is disgusting. Just let them do whatever they want...it's no skin off my nose, and not anyone else's business.
Interestingly enough, this issue of Where does human loyalty lie, to god or to government, is something has been going on since the Middle Ages at least (and I'm currently taking an independant readings class on the very issue). It will never be resolved, as long as people still have such an idea that they need to be attatched to some kind of religious being that is somehow better than them.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Interestingly enough, this issue of Where does human loyalty lie, to god or to government, is something has been going on since the Middle Ages at least (and I'm currently taking an independant readings class on the very issue). It will never be resolved, as long as people still have such an idea that they need to be attatched to some kind of religious being that is somehow better than them. [/QUOTE]
I would actually rephrase that to "Where does human loyalty lie, to individual morality or to public morality?"
While this issue may have religious undertones, there are exceptions, and there are several similar issues that would all fall under this description. It's easy to simplify it into religious wackos trying to enforce their religion, but that's not necessarily the case.
Interestingly enough, this issue of Where does human loyalty lie, to god or to government, is something has been going on since the Middle Ages at least (and I'm currently taking an independant readings class on the very issue). It will never be resolved, as long as people still have such an idea that they need to be attatched to some kind of religious being that is somehow better than them. [/QUOTE]
I would actually rephrase that to "Where does human loyalty lie, to individual morality or to public morality?"
While this issue may have religious undertones, there are exceptions, and there are several similar issues that would all fall under this description. It's easy to simplify it into religious wackos trying to enforce their religion, but that's not necessarily the case.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sparrow wrote: [/QUOTENAME]i dont even wanna read it, we all know how overpassionate i get XD[/QUOTE]
You and me both. I'm staying the hell out of this.
You and me both. I'm staying the hell out of this.
Anti-discrimination laws are necessary as long as there is discrimination. However, John Stuart pointed out the problem of this law: there are two rights conflicting - how can that be solved with a law.
I cannot believe a church can be forced by law to provide rooms for a gay wedding reception on their own property when they do not even tolerate gay relationships. I do not see any discrimination here because the church would not allow any other non-church wedding reception on their property, either. The church has the right to practice their faith and maintain their own rules on their private property, the government has no right to meddle into their business. I am not in a church myself and although I have strong opinions about some of them I would never consider to call for the law to make them accept my lifestyle - tolerance and respect have to go both ways.
The hotel owner and the printer - I cannot imagine there are many who reject gay customers, it's the 21st century. But if a Muslim printer for example refuses to print flyers for night clubs because he thinks they are places of sin, he cannot be forced to print them, it's not the business of the government to tell him otherwise.
Hospitals, schools, pharmacists are a very different story. They have to obey the law which already regulates that they cannot refuse patients, refuse medication or teach discrimination. It's obvious that all citizens have to be protected against discrimination in all vital areas like public services and work place.
This law is very similar to the "religious hatred" law from last year which was stopped by the British parliament in its original form. Basically, the parliament said that the freedom of speech should cover abuse and insults of ideas including religious ideas. If a law forbids religious jokes the freedom of speech is limited to an extent that is no longer acceptable. I think it was a good decision. Discrimination cannot be stopped by limiting the rights of the not discriminated part of the society, it can only be stopped by laws defining the rights of the discriminated minority (like allowing gay marriages, for example). In fact, the best way to stop discrimination is by good example. The acceptance of gay couples in Germany has rocketed after we have had three openly gay politicians who are relaxed and self confident and show people that a gay relationship is just as normal as a straight one.
I cannot believe a church can be forced by law to provide rooms for a gay wedding reception on their own property when they do not even tolerate gay relationships. I do not see any discrimination here because the church would not allow any other non-church wedding reception on their property, either. The church has the right to practice their faith and maintain their own rules on their private property, the government has no right to meddle into their business. I am not in a church myself and although I have strong opinions about some of them I would never consider to call for the law to make them accept my lifestyle - tolerance and respect have to go both ways.
The hotel owner and the printer - I cannot imagine there are many who reject gay customers, it's the 21st century. But if a Muslim printer for example refuses to print flyers for night clubs because he thinks they are places of sin, he cannot be forced to print them, it's not the business of the government to tell him otherwise.
Hospitals, schools, pharmacists are a very different story. They have to obey the law which already regulates that they cannot refuse patients, refuse medication or teach discrimination. It's obvious that all citizens have to be protected against discrimination in all vital areas like public services and work place.
This law is very similar to the "religious hatred" law from last year which was stopped by the British parliament in its original form. Basically, the parliament said that the freedom of speech should cover abuse and insults of ideas including religious ideas. If a law forbids religious jokes the freedom of speech is limited to an extent that is no longer acceptable. I think it was a good decision. Discrimination cannot be stopped by limiting the rights of the not discriminated part of the society, it can only be stopped by laws defining the rights of the discriminated minority (like allowing gay marriages, for example). In fact, the best way to stop discrimination is by good example. The acceptance of gay couples in Germany has rocketed after we have had three openly gay politicians who are relaxed and self confident and show people that a gay relationship is just as normal as a straight one.
i am a catholic, not a christian (there is a difference, you know! :D) and i think that forcing churches to hold gatherings for gay people isn't right. it's not that i'm against gay people or something. if i was, i wouldn't even be on this site. but anyway, back to the topic. i think it isn't right for the gov't to oblige the chruch to host receptions for gay couples because the church is a sacred place and it is the house of God. it's not the gays aren't welcome to enter it or something. it's just that you have to respect the church's decision if it doesn't want to allow the use of its venue for a gay wedding reception..
note: this is somehow related to a threadmade previously by CMUHistoryGirl, and my answer here is somewhat related. :D
note: this is somehow related to a threadmade previously by CMUHistoryGirl, and my answer here is somewhat related. :D
This isn't a matter of a church hosting gay wedding receptions or a mosque welcoming bikini-clad women. It's about public businesses discriminating against a certain part of the public because the owners of those businesses disapprove of the customer's lifestyle.
As I've said before, if a person has chosen to go into a field of business that caters to all different people of all different moral and religious beliefs, then that business owner is obligated to cater to them or go into a field that is more in line with their moral comfort level.
I worked in a small neighborhood photography studio for 15 years. We photographed about 200 weddings per year - all hetero. If a gay couple came in, we would all have been uncomfortable because it would have been a new experience for us but would we have had the right to refuse the job solely because it was homosexual?
What justification can a business owner have for that behavior? I don't know why there's an argument. You choose to serve the people with a specific business and then feel you have the right to choose which of those people you will serve and which you will not?
Music Man - in one of your replies you said this is not necessarily religious in nature. Perhaps it isn't, perhaps it's simple prejudice. However, they're hiding that behind the label of religion. Why? IMO, because they know that is the only way to be heard. A bigot would be called on the carpet for this, a moral religious person, however, is simply abiding by god's supposed law.
As I've said before, if a person has chosen to go into a field of business that caters to all different people of all different moral and religious beliefs, then that business owner is obligated to cater to them or go into a field that is more in line with their moral comfort level.
I worked in a small neighborhood photography studio for 15 years. We photographed about 200 weddings per year - all hetero. If a gay couple came in, we would all have been uncomfortable because it would have been a new experience for us but would we have had the right to refuse the job solely because it was homosexual?
What justification can a business owner have for that behavior? I don't know why there's an argument. You choose to serve the people with a specific business and then feel you have the right to choose which of those people you will serve and which you will not?
Music Man - in one of your replies you said this is not necessarily religious in nature. Perhaps it isn't, perhaps it's simple prejudice. However, they're hiding that behind the label of religion. Why? IMO, because they know that is the only way to be heard. A bigot would be called on the carpet for this, a moral religious person, however, is simply abiding by god's supposed law.