Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon 274 Replies latest social current

• 

  Viviane

  This whole thread is an exercise in futility. Why would anyone want to force homosexuals into a homophobic group. You guys remind me of the biblical text where Israelite raped women were given into permanent bond and submission to their rapists. What?!!!

  Because institutional racism was outlawed, we see far lower instances of it and newer generations actively embarassed by how backwards and racist the previous generations were. You will never get rid of it, some people will always be backwards turds. But, you can drive the rate at which it happens way down.

  Basically, to leave the world a better place is why you do it.
• 

  Viviane

  If it's not a person what the hell is it? For the record, I'll take anybody's (anything's?) money, also under the Washington State ADA you have to allow service animals in your establishment.
  If you're trying to be coy about a religion being the customer, in the United States a corporation (which an organized religion is) is a legally the same as a person

  I am well aware that a corporation is indeed legally a person, as weird as that is. But, religions aren't necessarily incorporate, sole proprietorships, government entities, etc., are all things you can do business with as customers that aren't people.

  Is it legal, in your opinion, to disciminate against them?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Why would anyone want to...

  There could be a person in business that offers one service and one service only. Let's pick something ridiculously obscene like singing a really homophobic song followed by a sincere lecture on why gays should be isolated from society as pariah. This is the only service sold by the business owner. Perhaps the owner opened the business thinking someone like the KKK or some other nut-job group would be the primary customer and that's who the owner really wants to work with anyway so that was fine by the owner.

  Fast forward to a time where gays see entertainment value in some fool who's willing to stand up in front of everyone and do this thing (perform this one service). So we have a pair of engaged gays who want this entertainment at their wedding reception, and they want the whole enchilada. They want full KKK regalia, lights (darkness!), sound, fire, everything! I can see this happening for one reason if not others: There are folks out there who'll pay money for just about anything and for reasons that would leave others with spinning heads trying to figure out "Why?"

  The business owner would have to provide his/her service to one as they would to another. Why anyone would want this service would not matter.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  If you have an example me telling someone what they think, please show me where that has happened and I will, of course, apologize.
  Otherwise, you're just making stuff up. Again.

  Okay. On page 3 of this discussion you'll find where you stated of me:

  So you think as long as there is no law against discriminating against women it's fine

  I responded saying:

  No.

  Then you told me what I was thinking. You replied saying:

  BS. You said if it was legal it should be fine.

  You told me my explicit answer of "No" was "BS," universally recognized as telling me I just lied, which is you telling me what I'm thinking is not what I said, which is you telling me what I think..

  Me saying lack of law against gender discrimination means it's not illegal to discriminate based on gender is NOT me saying that legal discrimination based on gender is "fine" or "should be fine". It's me saying it's fine PURELY FROM A LEGAL perspective, not simply "fine".
• 

  JeffT

  religions aren't necessarily incorporate, sole proprietorships, government entities, etc

  Name a religion in this country that is not a legal entity.
• 

  Viviane

  Name a religion in this country that is not a legal entity.

  Huh? No one ever said a religion was necessarily a legal entity. I said they weren't necessarily incorporated.

  In any event, do you think it is OK to discriminate against of the the organizations I described?
• 

  Viviane

  You told me my explicit answer of "No" was "BS," universally recognized as telling me I just lied, which is you telling me what I'm thinking is not what I said, which is you telling me what I think..

  Exactly. You did say it was fine but for some weird reason are still denying and arguing that. I can't help it if you don't understand synonyms or bother to ask for clarification.

  Anyway,

  Me saying lack of law against gender discrimination means it's not illegal to discriminate based on gender is NOT me saying that legal discrimination based on gender is "fine" or "should be fine". It's me saying it's fine PURELY FROM A LEGAL perspective, not simply "fine".

  Yep. Exactly. The problem is you assumed you knew what I meant by fine and OK and proceeded to argue from that false perspective rather than ask for clarification to help you out. Even now you're agreeing it's fine, which is exactly what I said.

  Your problem is that you did exactly what you are attempting to accuse me of and someone want to claim your lack of asking for clarification is my problem.

  Very weird.
• 

  Viviane

  Jeff,

  edit feature is acting a little wonky, what I meant to say is "Huh? No one ever said a religion was not or not necessarily a legal entity. I said they weren't necessarily incorporated"
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  ...The problem is you assumed you knew what I meant by fine and OK and proceeded to...

  I have no problem whatsoever reading "BS" keyboard by your hand to mean what I've just told you in expressly stated language is rejected by you as something other than what I'm thinking. You don't even address that response coming from you for what it says in terms of YOU telling me that YOU know what I'm thinking better than I know what I'm thinking.

  I can't help it if you don't understand synonyms or bother to ask for clarification.

  I understand what it means when I say "No" and your response is "BS". You've just told me that what I've written is not what I'm thinking, which is YOU pretending to know what I'm thinking.

  The problem is you assumed you knew what I meant by fine and OK and proceeded to argue from that false perspective rather than ask for clarification to help you out.

  My response of "No. But in this instance the discussion is about compelling individuals using written statutes, otherwise known as "laws". Hence in this case the discussion is about illegal forms of discrimination and not legal forms of discrimination." was given precisely to CLARIFY my remark was speaking of fine legally and not fine from any other perspective. I clarified my comments in relation to your statement, and your response was to reject my express statement and clarification, which was YOU asserting that YOU know what I'm thinking rather than letting my words speak for what they say. In THAT VERY instance had you let my words speak for what they actually said then you'd not have responded with "BS". But, no, you want to tell me what I'm thinking because YOU know better.
• 

  EndofMysteries

  The solution should be 'private' choice vs company public policy.

  If somebody owns a florist and they are the only employee, if they don't want to service a gay wedding, then the gay couple should move on to the next florist, somebody else will be more than happy to take their money.

  Now if the florist shop is has many employees, then the florist shop itself or company shouldn't have a policy that discriminates, each employee would be free to choose.

  The LGBT agenda claims they just want equal rights and they are not 'shoving it down peoples throats', but then they go to a small business who the owners are not comfortable, and instead of moving to the next person want to sue them, that is shoving it down their throats.

  I remember as a JW, JW's weren't supposed to work for any companies that were linked to military, or involved in birthdays, holidays, etc.

  Now on the other hand, if laws will be forcing people to do services and things they don't want that go against their beliefs, then those on this forum who keep saying that DFing will never be banned by law because it goes against religious freedom, think again, if these people have their religious freedom taken away because it's deemed discrimination or wrong, then how much more so is the dfing and shunning policy? And especially if these people are making their own choice without their churches telling them to do so, how much more so when the WT puts in print, "don't look for excuses to talk to dfed family members, even through email".