Conquer Club

Religious Freedom in the US

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby tzor on Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:58 pm

riskllama wrote:i don't completely agree with that, duk - i have no problems w/ear & nose piercings on either sex, if they are tastefully done.
*shrugs*


I do, but then again, I've had a lot of occasions of runny noses, so I'll admit that's just me. And the older I get ... it's like skim snot these days, an outpouring by the quart if not the gallon.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby riskllama on Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:11 pm

tzor wrote:
riskllama wrote:i don't completely agree with that, duk - i have no problems w/ear & nose piercings on either sex, if they are tastefully done.
*shrugs*


I do, but then again, I've had a lot of occasions of runny noses, so I'll admit that's just me. And the older I get ... it's like skim snot these days, an outpouring by the quart if not the gallon.

what's all that white, flakey shit in your avatar???
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant riskllama
 
Posts: 8873
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 9:50 pm
Location: deep inside Queen Charlotte.

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby mrswdk on Fri Sep 15, 2017 1:56 am

thegreekdog wrote:
mrswdk wrote:And also, LOL

thegreekdog wrote:Why are Democrats and liberals (and libertarians) focusing on Christians/Catholics and not other religions?


Coming from a guy in a country where the elected head of state declared that all Muslims should be banned from entering the country on the grounds that they are Muslims.

But no it's Catholicism that gets picked on.


Well first, only people from certain countries and not because of their religion (according to the actual policy).


As per your OP this is not a discussion of policies. He originally said he wanted to ban all Muslims.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby mrswdk on Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:24 am

thegreekdog wrote:I'm pointing out a potential slippery slope.


Telling people not to be homophobes is only the start of a 'slippery slope' towards Nazism and death camps if you think the only two possible positions to take are 'allow everything' or 'ban everything'. You're a lawyer so I'd assume you're reasonably intelligent enough to have a slightly more nuanced debate than that. The question is not 'should religious people be persecuted and/or genocided?', the question is 'should people be allowed to discriminate against each other if they cite religious beliefs?'.

Also, I see your slippery slope towards oppression and raise you my slippery slope towards anarchy. Today it's a baker refusing to serve a gay customer, tomorrow it will be this
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby DirtyDishSoap on Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:49 am

thegreekdog wrote:
DirtyDishSoap wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:(1) Catholic judge - The woman has consistently maintained both through the questioning and prior that religious preferences should not enter into decisions. As Duk notes, the issue is that she may be anti-abortion. If she is anti-abortion, she should be questioned on that basis, not on her religion.

She should be questioned if she's making her decisions based off of her religious beliefs. It's a conflict of interest between state vs the individual.
Take this for example.

Religious Judge and Same Sex marriage.

Would you not agree that in this case, that the basic right to marry who you choose, regardless of orientation, should be trumped by someone's religious belief? Wouldn't you agree that the judge should be impartial to his or hers religious beliefs in a matter of law?
It's off topic, but it should give you a picture that a religious judge has made decisions in the past based off their religion.

If there is a trend or a patter in the judge that has her religion influence in her decision making, then it should be questioned (but not persecuted).

On the other hand, a win for small business's and their right to refuse service.
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-09-08/justice-department-sides-with-bakery-against-same-sex-coupletbd

I'll read the Wikipedia article later when I have time.


That's the point DDS. The person testifying before Congress is NOT making decisions based on religious preferences. She indicated that multiple times. Further, the questions asked of her were pontifications of members of Congress on the validity of a judge based on her religious preferences. As someone indicated somewhere, imagine if the person testifying were Muslim or Jewish or an atheist. Further, it is against the law to ask questions indicating a religious test for holding office. Perhaps we're saying that law needs to be removed.


Listen, I'm aware of the original reasoning as to why, and I agree whole heartedly that one shouldn't be persecuted for their religious beliefs, but I'm wholly against someone with the power to pass judgment on others being influenced by their beliefs when the law can be a conflict of interest. I'm saying; did that person have a pattern recently or even in the past to warrant the questioning of her judgments? I provided an example that there have been cases in the past (recently) that judges get a little too passionate about whatever they believe in, rather than being unbiased and factual. Now, if she's simply a target because she's a Catholic, then yeah, I'll side with her, it's wrong and whatever someone practices on their private time should be allowed to do so without fear of persecution, provided it doesn't harmfully impact those around or, in this case, affect her job.
Dukasaur wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:taking medical advice from this creature; a morbidly obese man who is 100% convinced he willed himself into becoming a woman.

Your obsession with mrswdk is really sad.

ConfederateSS wrote:Just because people are idiots... Doesn't make them wrong.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class DirtyDishSoap
 
Posts: 8721
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:42 pm

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby tzor on Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:19 am

riskllama wrote:what's all that white, flakey shit in your avatar???


I cannot tell a lie (convincingly that is) ... it's dandruff.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby DoomYoshi on Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:35 pm

You keep mocking those analogies. They are as good as "Her eyes were like two brown circles with big black dots in the center."

I had quite the chuckle while reading these:
https://mymeproject.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/56-worstbest-analogies-of-high-school-students/
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby Symmetry on Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:53 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
mrswdk wrote:And also, LOL

thegreekdog wrote:Why are Democrats and liberals (and libertarians) focusing on Christians/Catholics and not other religions?


Coming from a guy in a country where the elected head of state declared that all Muslims should be banned from entering the country on the grounds that they are Muslims.

But no it's Catholicism that gets picked on.


Well first, only people from certain countries and not because of their religion (according to the actual policy).

And second, I'm fairly certain all liberals, all Democrats, and most everyone else (including me and most Libertarians) were not supportive of that decision.

If, on the other hand, the president started to quiz Muslim judicial candidates on religious preferences affecting judicial decisions in a formal hearing or came out and said that the only reason Muslims were supporting illegal immigrants was to get more converts and mosque-goers or the president started lambasting Muslim bakers for not baking a cake for a gay wedding... I would probably point those things out. That's not happening because Democrat Congresspeople won't attack Muslims at a hearing simply for being Muslim and because the liberals who brought the suit against the Christian baker would never bring a suit against a Muslim baker.


Were the people who brought a suit against the "Christian" baker "liberals"? It also seems like a bit of reach to say that the plaintiffs wouldn't have taken a case against a "Muslim" bakery had they refused services based on sexual orientation.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby 2dimes on Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:44 pm

Symmetry wrote:Were the people who brought a suit against the "Christian" baker "liberals"? It also seems like a bit of reach to say that the plaintiffs wouldn't have taken a case against a "Muslim" bakery had they refused services based on sexual orientation.


Only good can come from suing a "Christian" baker for refusing to bake for a gay wedding. Either God will defend the person in court or less likely but just as good, the baker might actually learn they should bake for everyone (typically translated to "neighbor" in English. As in "Love thy neighbor.") or lose their business.

I will defend an even worse hypocrite from being forced to perform the ceremony but, if you are making a product, it is different from performing a service, you can't just whine when the end purchaser uses your product for purposes you don't like. Make a different product.
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 12645
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby Symmetry on Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:10 pm

2dimes wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Were the people who brought a suit against the "Christian" baker "liberals"? It also seems like a bit of reach to say that the plaintiffs wouldn't have taken a case against a "Muslim" bakery had they refused services based on sexual orientation.


Only good can come from suing a "Christian" baker for refusing to bake for a gay wedding. Either God will defend the person in court or less likely but just as good, the baker might actually learn they should bake for everyone (typically translated to "neighbor" in English. As in "Love thy neighbor.") or lose their business.

I will defend an even worse hypocrite from being forced to perform the ceremony but, if you are making a product, it is different from performing a service, you can't just whine when the end purchaser uses your product for purposes you don't like. Make a different product.


I have trouble with this because the "Christian" bakers should be protected under law because of their political opinions. Gay marriage is a political issue. Making it a an issue of religion is, for me, misleading and dangerous.

This is where I thought TGD and I agreed- being Christian isn't really a good excuse to oppose gay marriage. Framing opposition as if it's something that you have to do to as a "Christian" is a cop out. Opposing gay marriage is not central to being Christian.

If the bakers refused all customers who were gay, that would be a different set of arguments. Not supporting gay marriage, much as I oppose it, is political, and shouldn't masquerade as religion.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby 2dimes on Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:35 pm

Symmetry wrote:I have trouble with this because the "Christian" bakers should be protected under law because of their political opinions.

No. You can't refuse a cake because the customer is a liberal.

If you and your Christians want to oppose gay marriage, fine. Do it via hateful signs or something.

Now bake them a cake or suffer a punishment of some sort. Beating with a cane, unreasonable fine, prison, loss of business privileges...
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 12645
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby mrswdk on Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:36 pm

ITT: Symmetry supports discrimination against gay people.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby Symmetry on Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:54 pm

2dimes wrote:
Symmetry wrote:I have trouble with this because the "Christian" bakers should be protected under law because of their political opinions.

No. You can't refuse a cake because the customer is a liberal.

If you and your Christians want to oppose gay marriage, fine. Do it via hateful signs or something.

Now bake them a cake or suffer a punishment of some sort. Beating with a cane, unreasonable fine, prison, loss of business privileges...


What I said was:

I have trouble with this because the "Christian" bakers should be protected under law because of their political opinions. Gay marriage is a political issue. Making it a an issue of religion is, for me, misleading and dangerous.

This is where I thought TGD and I agreed- being Christian isn't really a good excuse to oppose gay marriage. Framing opposition as if it's something that you have to do to as a "Christian" is a cop out. Opposing gay marriage is not central to being Christian.

If the bakers refused all customers who were gay, that would be a different set of arguments. Not supporting gay marriage, much as I oppose it, is political, and shouldn't masquerade as religion.


Try to keep up 2D.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby Dukasaur on Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:53 pm

DoomYoshi wrote:You keep mocking those analogies. They are as good as "Her eyes were like two brown circles with big black dots in the center."

I had quite the chuckle while reading these:
https://mymeproject.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/56-worstbest-analogies-of-high-school-students/


Who keeps mocking which analogies? Surely you have mastered the Quote button by now.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 26964
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby 2dimes on Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:54 pm

As long as you bake them their cake, I don't think anyone cares about the rest of your post.

If anyone does, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 12645
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby DoomYoshi on Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:55 am

Dukasaur wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:You keep mocking those analogies. They are as good as "Her eyes were like two brown circles with big black dots in the center."

I had quite the chuckle while reading these:
https://mymeproject.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/56-worstbest-analogies-of-high-school-students/


Who keeps mocking which analogies? Surely you have mastered the Quote button by now.


mrswdk wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Update!!

So far in this thread a bakery refusing to serve a customer because they are gay has been compared to:

- A business having a dress code for customers
- A religious school teaching religion
- A Yankee fan taunting a Red Sox fan
- A black person refusing to work for the KKK
- A magnet factory refusing to hire someone with lots of piercings
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby Symmetry on Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:03 pm

DoomYoshi wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:You keep mocking those analogies. They are as good as "Her eyes were like two brown circles with big black dots in the center."

I had quite the chuckle while reading these:
https://mymeproject.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/56-worstbest-analogies-of-high-school-students/


Who keeps mocking which analogies? Surely you have mastered the Quote button by now.


mrswdk wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Update!!

So far in this thread a bakery refusing to serve a customer because they are gay has been compared to:

- A business having a dress code for customers
- A religious school teaching religion
- A Yankee fan taunting a Red Sox fan
- A black person refusing to work for the KKK
- A magnet factory refusing to hire someone with lots of piercings


Analogies are useful tools in a discussion. Pointing out bad analogies is part of the process.

To be clear- as far as I know, the bakery did not refuse to serve the customer because they were gay. They refused to make a gay wedding cake.

If they refused customers based on their sexual orientation, to me that should be unlawful. Refusing to make a wedding cake, however obnoxious the refusal is, is a political stance.

Using religion to justify that stance is pretty shaky. Many Christians support gay marriage. It's not really a key tenet of being Christian.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby DoomYoshi on Sat Sep 16, 2017 7:17 pm

Did Christ support gay marriage? If so, followers of Christ would be expected to support/unsupport it based on that.
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby DirtyDishSoap on Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:20 pm

Symmetry wrote:To be clear- as far as I know, the bakery did not refuse to serve the customer because they were gay. They refused to make a gay wedding cake.

If they refused customers based on their sexual orientation, to me that should be unlawful. Refusing to make a wedding cake, however obnoxious the refusal is, is a political stance.

Using religion to justify that stance is pretty shaky. Many Christians support gay marriage. It's not really a key tenet of being Christian.


Eh, depends on the cake. The baker has a right to refuse to make a cake if he/she finds it unreasonable. If you came to a bakery asking to make a cake with the depiction of Michael Jackson taking a 8 inch wiener up his ass on top of it, and making the flavor coconut, I think a bakery would have the right to refuse to do business.

When we boil down to it, service can be refused to everyone provided it's blanket. No shoes, no shirt, no service is a prime example.
Dukasaur wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:taking medical advice from this creature; a morbidly obese man who is 100% convinced he willed himself into becoming a woman.

Your obsession with mrswdk is really sad.

ConfederateSS wrote:Just because people are idiots... Doesn't make them wrong.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class DirtyDishSoap
 
Posts: 8721
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:42 pm

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby Symmetry on Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:29 pm

DirtyDishSoap wrote:
Symmetry wrote:To be clear- as far as I know, the bakery did not refuse to serve the customer because they were gay. They refused to make a gay wedding cake.

If they refused customers based on their sexual orientation, to me that should be unlawful. Refusing to make a wedding cake, however obnoxious the refusal is, is a political stance.

Using religion to justify that stance is pretty shaky. Many Christians support gay marriage. It's not really a key tenet of being Christian.


Eh, depends on the cake. The baker has a right to refuse to make a cake if he/she finds it unreasonable. If you came to a bakery asking to make a cake with the depiction of Michael Jackson taking a 8 inch wiener up his ass on top of it, and making the flavor coconut, I think a bakery would have the right to refuse to do business.

When we boil down to it, service can be refused to everyone provided it's blanket. No shoes, no shirt, no service is a prime example.


Obviously not true.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby DirtyDishSoap on Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:33 pm

Sure it is.

If a pregnant woman were to ask a bartender for a drink, the bartender can refuse it. (Except in the state of New York). Nevermind the legal consequences if the bartender gave her a drink and resulted in numerous health issues...But it's blanket for all women whom are pregnant, bartenders typically won't serve a lady who is pregnant.
Same thing applies if I were to try to get service at my local convenient store if I came in with no shirt. I'd be refused service. Posted sign and all.

What's hard to understand? The right to refuse service, or the rights of the business?
Dukasaur wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:taking medical advice from this creature; a morbidly obese man who is 100% convinced he willed himself into becoming a woman.

Your obsession with mrswdk is really sad.

ConfederateSS wrote:Just because people are idiots... Doesn't make them wrong.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class DirtyDishSoap
 
Posts: 8721
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:42 pm

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby Symmetry on Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:47 pm

Blanket refusal of service based on race or religion, sexual orientation or gender, isn't the same as a "no shirt, no shoes policy".
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby DirtyDishSoap on Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:51 pm

True, it isn't, which brings us to the issue we're having.

If a baker can't refuse service for making a same sex cake, despite his religious beliefs, wouldn't that infringe on his religious rights? I believe in this case that religion should trump the same sex marriage. It's purely business rather than a political one. But people want to make an issue of it because it's apparently the only bakery in a 25 mile radius.
Dukasaur wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:taking medical advice from this creature; a morbidly obese man who is 100% convinced he willed himself into becoming a woman.

Your obsession with mrswdk is really sad.

ConfederateSS wrote:Just because people are idiots... Doesn't make them wrong.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class DirtyDishSoap
 
Posts: 8721
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:42 pm

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby TA1LGUNN3R on Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:01 pm

Newsflash, dds, MENSA can no longer exclude membership based on intelligence. 85-110 IQs must be admitted otherwise it's discrimination.

-TG
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class TA1LGUNN3R
 
Posts: 2699
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:52 am
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue

Re: Religious Freedom in the US

Postby Symmetry on Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:04 pm

DirtyDishSoap wrote:True, it isn't, which brings us to the issue we're having.

If a baker can't refuse service for making a same sex cake, despite his religious beliefs, wouldn't that infringe on his religious rights? I believe in this case that religion should trump the same sex marriage. It's purely business rather than a political one. But people want to make an issue of it because it's apparently the only bakery in a 25 mile radius.


How would you distinguish a religious belief from a political belief though? If I said that I was red-green colour blind because I'm Agnostic, you'd be understandably sceptical. Religion ain't a catch-all excuse for bigotry.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DirtyDishSoap, jonesthecurl, karel, mookiemcgee