Research on Belief in God

Page 92 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
0
0
ray j willings said:
Well said. I mean Maaaaaaaarten is just looking to score goals and insinuate that all gays are rapists. I think perhaps Maaaaaaaarten should seek some therapy to get a grip of his underlying and plain stupid fear that is obviously lurking in his mind.
What?! :confused:

Maybe you need to reread my post, I certainly never said anything like this. I didn't say anything like all gay men being rapists nor was I insinuating it at all. I merely stated that the sexual behaviour of dolphins is not relevant for arguing whether or not similar sexual behaviour in humans is moral or not.

This post by ray j willings illustrates the type of 'discrimination' I was talking about earlier. I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't have anything to complain about, I feel quite free to believe what I want and to act on my beliefs, so I wouldn't really call it discrimination myself. But the point is; all I did was engage with one specific argument concerning the moral discussion about homosexuality and suddenly I'm being accused of insinuating all gay men are rapists and there's apparently obviously fear lurking in my mind. These types of accusations at my address are absolutely ridiculous and unfounded. But you can see it frequently in western media (at least I see it frequently in the media of my own country); everybody who comes close to saying something negative about homosexuality is portrayed extremely negatively, as a narrow minded bigot, basically a racist and obviously motivated by irrational fear.......

Actually I really wouldn't call it discrimination, but rather intolerance. Some topics in the modern liberal west aren't up for discussion; that's how it feels sometimes. If you show a dissenting opinion on certain topics, especially if religion plays any role in it, you can count on some antagonizing and personal attacks. Fortunately it doesn't go further than that, so as I said, I certainly don't have a lot to complain about. :)

Fortunately there are also people who actually reply to the point and without unfounded personal attacks:

hrotha said:
It's relevant because "it's unnatural" is one of the most common reasons given by the Christian right to justify their anti-gay discrimination.
Well, still, what is natural for one species doesn't have to be natural for another species. So it still doesn't seem like a very strong argument to me, but fair enough.

Also, one important distinction to me made here is whether these animals actually show homosexuality as a kind of sexual orientation as a kind of identity, similar to what we see in modern western culture, or whether they simply show homosexual behaviour. Obviously in animals and throughout human history it is a fact that there is homosexual behaviour. But I don't think anything like a homosexual orientation is necessarily proven in animals (though I'll happily admit that my knowledge about this topic is very limited, so please correct me if I'm wrong :)) and to my knowledge the modern concept of (homo)sexual orientation as a kind of identity is profoundly absent in history up until the 19th century. It's always been quite striking to me that even in cultures where homosexual behaviour is considered perfectly acceptable (for instance in ancient Greece) they don't have a similar notion of a homosexual orientation similar to what we are being taught today at all. It's quite striking to me that this notion is to my knowledge completely absent up until 19th century western culture even though people claim nowadays that like ~5% of the people or even more are supposed to have this sexual orientation. So I do wonder whether it is really natural in the sense that a homosexual orientation is a kind of universal biologically determined phenomenon, or whether it is at least in part a social construct of modern western culture.

hrotha said:
Unlike dolphin rape, however, dolphin (and human) homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone - on the contrary, it brings about happiness to the people involved. Hell, that must be as close to a definition of "morally right" as you can get.
Well, I'm not a hedonist at all, so I wouldn't really ascribe to this definition of what is morally right. :)
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
0
0
rhubroma said:
I don't know, from where does discrimination come? Other than an insult to intelligence.

Those fanatics that pulverized some stones, because they can't support civilization (any civilization), are so annihilated by civilization that they must hate it.
Well, I don't know where discrimination comes from. I think we can all think of plenty of examples of discrimination that are completely unrelated to religion though.

I'd be inclined to seek to cause of discrimination more on a sociological level in group dynamics and such.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Maaaaaaaarten why did you mention forced copulation?
It was not in anyway relevant.

I am certainly not discriminating.
Like I said before, to not do business with someone because of the sexuality shows ignorance and prejudice and its only your own fears not any real actual fears that make people do these sort of things.
Act with intelligence not ignorance.
Its a perfect example of how people who believe in a deity, sprout peace and good will to all yet try to find justification for discrimination.
Its bullsh$%
 
Maaaaaaaarten said:
Well, I don't know where discrimination comes from. I think we can all think of plenty of examples of discrimination that are completely unrelated to religion though.

I'd be inclined to seek to cause of discrimination more on a sociological level in group dynamics and such.
I would say that discrimination (in it's true definition, not as defined by liberals :)) is a sin.
 
Maaaaaaaarten said:
Well, I don't know where discrimination comes from. I think we can all think of plenty of examples of discrimination that are completely unrelated to religion though.

I'd be inclined to seek to cause of discrimination more on a sociological level in group dynamics and such.
Nonesense. In any case this is a thread about God and religion, thus the other sources of discrimintation are irrelevant here.

Given that so much discrimination comes from religious doctrine and belief, however, religion has this hanging over its shoulders.
 
Jspear said:
I would say that discrimination (in it's true definition, not as defined by liberals :)) is a sin.
But how does this square with homosexuality (as defined by conservative religious bigots) being a sin?

The discrimination arises and fosters here, certainly not from the liberal precepts of tolerance.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Ruby United said:
Would you like to give any proofs or cases regarding this, because all I have is your weak, unspecified, vague comment/response with no proofs

The whole Talmud is full of proofs of insanity but you can start with these:
Sanhedrin 52b
Kerithoth 11a
Yebamoth 60b
Kethuboth 11b

I spent a few days reading sections of this lunatic book a few years ago, the ravings of mad men. I'm just a goy though, thus not human, so I'll bow to your superiority. :rolleyes:
http://www.come-and-hear.com/tcontents.html

...but then we're talking about a religion that takes the words from deuteronomy 6:8 & 11:18 as well as exodus 13:9 and does this:



The Muslims do something more interesting with the black cube at least, they mimic the movement of the cosmos (whether they realize it or not):



I'll stick to the Kabbalah and stuff like this:
http://www.amazon.ca/Lectures-Ancient-Philosophy-Manly-Hall/dp/1585424323
 
Ruby United said:
'For example, the book?s anonymous author cites the fact that in 1774, the Jews of Jamaica owned 310 slaves, which, horrific as it is, is only 4 percent of the total slave population in Jamaica at that time (7,424). A grand total of 12 Jews owned plantations, and yet this doesn?t stop the author from concluding that Jews dominated the trade.'

[...]
Davis continues:

To keep matters in perspective, we should note that in the American South, in 1830, there were only 120 Jews among the 45,000 slaveholders owning twenty or more slaves and only twenty Jews among the 12,000 slaveholders owning fifty or more slaves. Even if each member of this Jewish slaveholding elite had owned 714 slaves?a ridiculously high figure in the American South?the total number would only equal the 100,000 slaves owned by Black and colored planters in St. Domingue in 1789, on the eve of the Haitian Revolution.
With all respect, there's chronology problem, I think. 1774, 1789, 1830 is pretty late in the Transatlantic slave trade history. No one denies that the Jewish role in the United States of America was less dominant than in other parts of the Americas in other periods. At least Tony Martin does not deny that. I don't even question your figures.

In the 18th century, the Brits and the French got involved in it, to significant degree, that's true but they jumped on the bandwagon. The trade from Nantes - biggest slaving port in France's history - only started in 1713. The French trade really took off after the "Code noir" (1685) whose 1st article prohibited Jews from owning slaves (showing hat they formerly did) [article that was abrogated by Louis XIV 3 years later, I think] and which sort of "humanised" the whole thing if ever that was possible, but I'm not supporting the "Code noir", of course. What is sure though is that by the late 17th century, Europe was secularising and the Church's power was undermined. A guy like Voltaire became immensely rich thanks to the slave trade and hated the Christians as much as the Jews. England was already secularised long before France and the USA were a secular country right from the start. Slave-owner Washington was Freemasonic.

The Church and Christians did what they could to slow it down. The Conference of Valladolid has already been mentioned here. I'd add the fact that Christians have abolished slavery in Europe itself and that the owners could not get back to the mainland with their slaves. There had been several cases of traders who did. The slaves could sue them and be enfranchised straightway. I mentioned the case of Gabriel Pampy & Amynthe Julienne on this forum.

The period when the Jews/Marranos were prominent in the slave trade was the 17th century, mainly the 1st part of it, in Brazil, and then in Guyana, Surinam and the Caribeans, not that much in terms of plantation ownership, though they also owned plantations and some of the best of them but in terms of importation of slaves, provisioning, auctioning and selling them to plantation owners. Besides, they dominated the sugar trade at that time too.

You have that in Seymour Drescher, "The Role of Jews in the Atlantic Slave Trade" (who yet criticised Nation of Islam's work) and Edward Kritzler "Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean: How a Generation of Swashbuckling Jews Carved Out an Empire in the New World in Their Quest for Treasure, Religious Freedom [...]"

Also if we got back to the start of the Transatlantic trade which means Columbus' voyage, we may realise that Columbus was not sponsored by the Spanish Queen as is often suggested but by a few influential Marranos such as Luis de Sant?ngel, and a handful of Marranos accompanied him on the voyage. You hae it in George Cohen "Jews in the Making of America" and Meyer Kayselring "Christopher Columbus and the participation of the Jews in the Spanish and Portuguese discoveries" (both Jewish historians)

I quoted the Talmud because Tony Martin argued that the Curse of Ham such as interpreted by a couple of glosses from the Talmud provided the rationale behind the justification of the African Slave Trade. Not the myth in the Torah, itself. The Blacks were cursed. Moses Maimonides also classified the Africans somewhere between humans and monkeys. Of course I can figure that not every Jewish people did not and do not agree with that ... That's not the point. In Christianity, no peoples are cursed. In Islam neither. Racism is unequivocally challenged.
 
Echoes said:
I quoted the Talmud because Tony Martin argued that the Curse of Ham such as interpreted by a couple of glosses from the Talmud provided the rationale behind the justification of the African Slave Trade. Not the myth in the Torah, itself. The Blacks were cursed. Moses Maimonides also classified the Africans somewhere between humans and monkeys. Of course I can figure that not every Jewish people did not and do not agree with that ... That's not the point. In Christianity, no peoples are cursed. In Islam neither. Racism is unequivocally challenged.
Firstly, about the Rambam (Moses Maimonides) you made a few critical mistakes:

a) As I'm about to prove, the Rambam was NOT racist and has also been misquoted, however even assuming he did say this you should know what he himself says in a different letter:

"Similarly it is not proper to abandon matters of reason that have been verified by proofs... and depend on the words of the sages from whom the matter was possibly hidden... A man should never cast his reason behind him"

So he himself says that if he said something that has been proved wrong, ignore it as the matter was hidden.
(though this isn't even necessary as you will see)

b) The letter where the Rambam was supposedly racist was written in Judea-Arabic and is quite precise, the exact reading is like this...

"Such individuals as the furthermost Turks found in the remote North, and the Sudanese found in the remote South, and those who resemble them... the status of those is like that of irrational animals. To my mind they do not have the rank of men, but have among the beings a rank lower than the rank of man but higher than the ram or the apes. For they have the external shape and lineaments of a man and a faculty of discernment that is superior to that of the apes."

Things to notice:
The Rambam did not say Black once, rather he was very specific to areas, even giving directions in SPECIFIC countries, no-one talking about black people would write (to give an example nowadays) Southern Angola. They would say black. It seems clear the Rambam is not talking about blacks.

The Rambam was talking about types of people, people with no morals, it seems that then in remote Southern Sudan and furthermost Northern Turks were generally less moral. The Rambam is talking about any human with no morals and he doesn't say that they ARE lower than men, but COMPARES them with animals.

I could go on to prove that Moses Maimonides wasn't racist but now for the Talmud:

Without going into too much detail the Talmud is certainly not racist and has been interpreted wrongly. It does not say being a black person is a curse.
(Check up the matter more if that doesn't satisfy you, there are many detailed, satisfactory answers)

And:

"Our philosophy asserts that every human being is created in the image of the Lord and the primacy of integrity and honesty in all dealings without exception. I strongly repudiate any assertions in the name of Judaism that do not represent and reflect this philosophy."

- Rabbi Malkiel Kotler, dean of the world-renowned Lakewood Yeshiva, Dec. 16, 2003

Any Jew who doesn't hold of this is misguided
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
red_flanders said:
Disagreement does not equal discrimination. People do like to play the victim when real arguments fail...
Now what has that got to do with God and/or religion? Feel free to open a thread where you can discuss such topics... but please not here.
 
Jspear said:
I believe homosexuality is a sin. I also think stealing is a sin. I have no problem interacting with gays, socializing, and even doing business with them. If I distanced my self from all sinners then I couldn't do anything with anyone, including myself. What I won't do is participate in any act that is going to directly promote or say I agree with their life style. Hence my example of not making them a wedding cake. I believe that would be affirming their lifestyle. I would have no problem making them a cake or doing any business with them in any other context though. That's hardly discrimination.
On the contrary, it's literally the definition of discrimination.

Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".
You may be okay with discriminating against homosexuals, but it is what it is. You can't change the definition of a word because you don't want to feel you support discrimination, but you do. The person who wouldn't make the cake discriminated against the couple, and of course, lost in court.

An administrative law judge ruled against Phillips and the commission upheld that decision, finding that Phillips' refusal violated the state's public accommodation law that requires businesses to serve customers regardless of their sexual orientation.
I'll grant it's difficult for people who sincerely believe they're in the right to accept the fact that they are, in fact, discriminating. But it's also simple. They are.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
red_flanders said:
On the contrary, it's literally the definition of discrimination.



You may be okay with discriminating against homosexuals, but it is what it is. You can't change the definition of a word because you don't want to feel you support discrimination, but you do. The person who wouldn't make the cake discriminated against the couple, and of course, lost in court.



I'll grant it's difficult for people who sincerely believe they're in the right to accept the fact that they are, in fact, discriminating. But it's also simple. They are.
BS, if Jspear doesnt want to bake cake for homosexuals in his privacy, its his free right not to do so. He cant be forced in the name of pc to change his POV. Ever heard of freedom Mr. Right?

Anyway, what has this got to do with this thread? I think you shall stay on topic. I tell you once more...
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
BS, if Jspear doesnt want to bake cake for homosexuals in his privacy, its his free right not to do so. He cant be forced in the name of pc to change his POV. Ever heard of freedom Mr. Right?

Anyway, what has this got to do with this thread? I think you shall stay on topic. I tell you once more...
It isn?t privacy, RF was talking about a public business. That was what was involved in the case that he referred to. If you don?t want to make friends with a gay person, or socialize with him, you can live that way, though Jspear implies he doesn't live that way. But if you?re in the business of selling something to the public, and you refuse to sell it to someone because he?s gay, that is by definition discrimination. The fact that you will sell some things, but not others, like wedding cakes, is irrelevant. It's still discrimination.

That was RF?s point. You really can?t argue against the dictionary. You might not like calling a tomato a fruit, either, but according to the dictionary it is. The dictionary really doesn?t care whether you like or agree with a particular definition or not.

If you want to argue that discrimination should be legal, that is a different issue. But trying to support that view on the basis of freedom won?t work. Because obviously one individual?s freedom to discriminate interferes with other people?s freedom to have access to the same goods and services that the rest of the population enjoys. Jspear?s freedom not to sell a wedding cake to a gay person interferes with that person?s right to buy a wedding cake if he has the money to do so.

If enough people feel this way, you have an entire social class denied certain rights. This of course has happened in the past, with African-Americans, e.g., and the only reason it doesn't happen to the same extent with gays today is because people like Jspear are in a fairly small minority. Jspear claims that his view isn't harmful to gays because they can always buy their wedding cake somewhere else.

I have two problems with that. First, if he really thinks homosexuality is a sin, why should he be promoting it by telling them where they can buy a wedding cake? It may make him feel that he's not involved in their sin, but it doesn't change anything other than make life a little more difficult for them.

Consider an analogy. I own a liquor store, and someone I know to be an alcoholic comes in and wants to buy some of my product. I may not regard alcoholism as a sin--I'd say it's more of a disease--but it has very undesirable consequences, harmful for that person and probably others in his life, maybe even for strangers if he drinks and drives. I guess legally I have to sell to him, but if I took Jspear's attitude and decided that in conscience I couldn't, I certainly wouldn't tell him where he could buy liquor. That would be just helping him continue his addiction, no better than if I had sold him alcohol. The fact that I wasn't the one who made the sale would be very little comfort to me if he went out on a bender later and maybe someone died as a result.

In the second place, Jspear would prefer a society, I'm sure, in which everyone held his religious views. If that were the case, no doubt gays would not only have to buy their wedding cakes (assuming they continued to have weddings, even if not legally recognized as such) only at stores run by gays, but anything that symbolized or was related to marriage. It's really a very short step from there to rationalizing not selling anything to a gay person who is known to be in a relationship with another gay person.

Just because Jspear doesn't take this step, or thinks he wouldn't, doesn't mean others of a similar view wouldn't. His phrase "affirming their lifestyle" is obviously open to a wide variety of interpretations. Isn't any gift a gay person might buy for his lover affirming their lifestyle? If you run a jewelry store, are you going to sell rings to a gay person for himself, but not if he says it's for his lover? For that matter, if I go to the market and buy food for my family, isn't the fact that I'm not buying food for just myself affirming my lifestyle in relationship with other people? Why would it be any different for gays?

As for what has this got to do with this thread: Jspear is rationalizing his discrimination on the basis of religion. He thinks being gay is a sin, because a book that he apparently believes in literally tells him that it is. And Jspear is by no means alone, many other people who consider themselves to be Christians believe the same thing.

Methinks you know all this, Foxxy, but are carrying a grudge against RF formed on another thread.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Merckx index said:
It isn?t privacy, RF was talking about a public business. That was what was involved in the case that he referred to.
I just looked at the quotes redflanders gave off Jspear. And it clearly stated that Jspear would not do wedding cakes, but ofc would in other cases. That is crystal clear. So how can redflanders say that Jspear discriminates homosexuals? Its a lie, and he shall know it. But he cant since he is always biased (meaning he owns the final truth, those who say otherwise are trolling). Thats it. No more, no less.

BTW: Redflanders started the fire long ago. Now its time to hit back when he posts against his own rules he made for me. Reminds me of preaching water, but drinking wine. Cant stand such hypos.

What redflanders quoted:
Jspear said:
I believe homosexuality is a sin. I also think stealing is a sin. I have no problem interacting with gays, socializing, and even doing business with them. If I distanced my self from all sinners then I couldn't do anything with anyone, including myself. What I won't do is participate in any act that is going to directly promote or say I agree with their life style. Hence my example of not making them a wedding cake. I believe that would be affirming their lifestyle. I would have no problem making them a cake or doing any business with them in any other context though. That's hardly discrimination.
His response:
red_flanders said:
On the contrary, it's literally the definition of discrimination.
Finally him being completely off topic; the first post by him:
red_flanders said:
Disagreement does not equal discrimination. People do like to play the victim when real arguments fail...
He didnt quote anything to have his post in context. So to me it looked like he talked about discrimination "out of the blue". His mistake not to quote the context. He sits in the glass house, thus shall lead as perfect poster.
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
0
0
Merckx index said:
Consider an analogy. I own a liquor store, and someone I know to be an alcoholic comes in and wants to buy some of my product. I may not regard alcoholism as a sin--I'd say it's more of a disease--but it has very undesirable consequences, harmful for that person and probably others in his life, maybe even for strangers if he drinks and drives. I guess legally I have to sell to him, but if I took Jspear's attitude and decided that in conscience I couldn't, I certainly wouldn't tell him where he could buy liquor. That would be just helping him continue his addiction, no better than if I had sold him alcohol. The fact that I wasn't the one who made the sale would be very little comfort to me if he went out on a bender later and maybe someone died as a result.
This is a pretty good analogy. In my opinion it would be ridiculous to sue the owner of a liquor store for discrimination against alcoholics if he refused to sell alcohol to an alcoholic because of moral concerns. But yet there are several cases in the US of fundamentally the same happening with Christians refusing to provide services for a gay wedding.......
 
Merckx index said:
It isn?t privacy, RF was talking about a public business. That was what was involved in the case that he referred to. If you don?t want to make friends with a gay person, or socialize with him, you can live that way, though Jspear implies he doesn't live that way. But if you?re in the business of selling something to the public, and you refuse to sell it to someone because he?s gay, that is by definition discrimination. The fact that you will sell some things, but not others, like wedding cakes, is irrelevant. It's still discrimination.

That was RF?s point. You really can?t argue against the dictionary. You might not like calling a tomato a fruit, either, but according to the dictionary it is. The dictionary really doesn?t care whether you like or agree with a particular definition or not.

If you want to argue that discrimination should be legal, that is a different issue. But trying to support that view on the basis of freedom won?t work. Because obviously one individual?s freedom to discriminate interferes with other people?s freedom to have access to the same goods and services that the rest of the population enjoys. Jspear?s freedom not to sell a wedding cake to a gay person interferes with that person?s right to buy a wedding cake if he has the money to do so.

If enough people feel this way, you have an entire social class denied certain rights. This of course has happened in the past, with African-Americans, e.g., and the only reason it doesn't happen to the same extent with gays today is because people like Jspear are in a fairly small minority. Jspear claims that his view isn't harmful to gays because they can always buy their wedding cake somewhere else.

I have two problems with that. First, if he really thinks homosexuality is a sin, why should he be promoting it by telling them where they can buy a wedding cake? It may make him feel that he's not involved in their sin, but it doesn't change anything other than make life a little more difficult for them.

Consider an analogy. I own a liquor store, and someone I know to be an alcoholic comes in and wants to buy some of my product. I may not regard alcoholism as a sin--I'd say it's more of a disease--but it has very undesirable consequences, harmful for that person and probably others in his life, maybe even for strangers if he drinks and drives. I guess legally I have to sell to him, but if I took Jspear's attitude and decided that in conscience I couldn't, I certainly wouldn't tell him where he could buy liquor. That would be just helping him continue his addiction, no better than if I had sold him alcohol. The fact that I wasn't the one who made the sale would be very little comfort to me if he went out on a bender later and maybe someone died as a result.

In the second place, Jspear would prefer a society, I'm sure, in which everyone held his religious views. If that were the case, no doubt gays would not only have to buy their wedding cakes (assuming they continued to have weddings, even if not legally recognized as such) only at stores run by gays, but anything that symbolized or was related to marriage. It's really a very short step from there to rationalizing not selling anything to a gay person who is known to be in a relationship with another gay person.

Just because Jspear doesn't take this step, or thinks he wouldn't, doesn't mean others of a similar view wouldn't. His phrase "affirming their lifestyle" is obviously open to a wide variety of interpretations. Isn't any gift a gay person might buy for his lover affirming their lifestyle? If you run a jewelry store, are you going to sell rings to a gay person for himself, but not if he says it's for his lover? For that matter, if I go to the market and buy food for my family, isn't the fact that I'm not buying food for just myself affirming my lifestyle in relationship with other people? Why would it be any different for gays?

As for what has this got to do with this thread: Jspear is rationalizing his discrimination on the basis of religion. He thinks being gay is a sin, because a book that he apparently believes in literally tells him that it is. And Jspear is by no means alone, many other people who consider themselves to be Christians believe the same thing.

Methinks you know all this, Foxxy, but are carrying a grudge against RF formed on another thread.
But the question I have through all of your points is "what about my religious convictions?" Am I not free to exercise them? I would agree I shouldn't be allowed to exercise my beliefs if they cause harm to others, but my stance on this issue hardly causes harm to others.
 
Jspear said:
But the question I have through all of your points is "what about my religious convictions?" Am I not free to exercise them? I would agree I shouldn't be allowed to exercise my beliefs if they cause harm to others, but my stance on this issue hardly causes harm to others.
I think that's the difficulty here. Certainly many decent and well-meaning people believe their religious convictions supercede the right of others not to be discriminated against.

The courts however have ruled differently. No one is stopping people from practicing their religion, or expressing their religious point of view, and as such, no First Amendment violation has occurred. Certainly not to the point where one has the right to discriminate against others on the basis or their sexual orientation.

I understand completely why people want to discriminate, and I believe they do so in many cases with the best intentions in mind. It's a difficult question and why we have the constitution and the courts. If it were easy it wouldn't come up.

My main point is that it's not accurate to say "That's hardly discrimination". I think we all need to realize it is discrimination and not excuse ourselves because the word has negative connotations. That's the first step in how we justify unfair behavior and our own prejudices. When we put our beliefs over the rights of others, we need to recognize what we're doing.

You're allowed to have your beliefs. You're just not allowed to discriminate based on those beliefs.
 
red_flanders said:
I think that's the difficulty here. Certainly many decent and well-meaning people believe their religious convictions supercede the right of others not to be discriminated against.

The courts however have ruled differently. No one is stopping people from practicing their religion, or expressing their religious point of view, and as such, no First Amendment violation has occurred. Certainly not to the point where one has the right to discriminate against others on the basis or their sexual orientation.

I understand completely why people want to discriminate, and I believe they do so in many cases with the best intentions in mind. It's a difficult question and why we have the constitution and the courts. If it were easy it wouldn't come up.

My main point is that it's not accurate to say "That's hardly discrimination". I think we all need to realize it is discrimination and not excuse ourselves because the word has negative connotations. That's the first step in how we justify unfair behavior and our own prejudices.
Why can't I pray in school. That is discrimination just the same.
 
red_flanders said:
I think that's the difficulty here. Certainly many decent and well-meaning people believe their religious convictions supercede the right of others not to be discriminated against.

The courts however have ruled differently. No one is stopping people from practicing their religion, or expressing their religious point of view, and as such, no First Amendment violation has occurred. Certainly not to the point where one has the right to discriminate against others on the basis or their sexual orientation.

I understand completely why people want to discriminate, and I believe they do so in many cases with the best intentions in mind. It's a difficult question and why we have the constitution and the courts. If it were easy it wouldn't come up.

My main point is that it's not accurate to say "That's hardly discrimination". I think we all need to realize it is discrimination and not excuse ourselves because the word has negative connotations. That's the first step in how we justify unfair behavior and our own prejudices. When we put our beliefs over the rights of others, we need to recognize what we're doing.

You're allowed to have your beliefs. You're just not allowed to discriminate based on those beliefs.
You do realize that with your definition of discrimination everyone (or at least 90% of people) discriminates.
 
Jspear said:
You do realize that with your definition of discrimination everyone (or at least 90% of people) discriminates.
It's not my definition, it's the courts'.

Can you clarify how 90% of people refuse business products or services to homosexuals based on their religious beliefs? That can't be what you mean, but that's the discussion point so I don't follow.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS