by Simon 274 Replies latest social current
How can anyone not be aware that discrimination is wrong?
Discrimination is not wrong under the law unless the thing discriminated against is protected against discrimination. In the case of the florist gal it appears to me the woman was in business and was not under an impression that wedding ceremonies for gays was protected. In terms of selling flowers she was willing to sell flowers to anyone, including gays.
Marvin Shilmer, "If you excuse something for one then you excuse it for all., Right?"
Based on that logic what happens to a gay person when he/she is refused to buy food at a supermarket.
I don't think the florist gal was imposing her opinion on anyone. She was having an opinion imposed on her, one she apparently did not expect and did not understand as a legal requirement.
She was. She was the one who suddenly decided to tell someone that she didn't want to serve them because of what they are. She began the process.
I am not surprised that a religious zealot finds understanding basic humanity or rules difficult. It's good to remind them what they are and frequently necessary.
So the florist gal could refuse to sell flowers to a pair of KKK members who want their marriage event performed in full KKK regalia and pomp because to do so would be contrary to her personal religious conscience, but the same florist could not refuse sell flowers to a pair of gays for their marriage event because to do so would be contrary to her personal religious conscience?
A false equivalence as well as an unlikely scenario. The people getting married may be KKK members but it is not the KKK organization getting married. If it was some KKK event I think people would have the right to refuse it.
If you excuse something for one then you excuse it for all., Right?
Apparently, the religious only want things excused for them. When it's the other way they still want to be protected. Strange that.
I wonder at the motivation of anyone who attempts to defend obvious discrimination like this. Religion is THE ultimate example of bigoted and judgmental people wanting to impose their "standards" on others and interfere with the lives and affairs or people that have nothing to do with. Why should the word pander to them?
If anything we need laws to protect society FROM religion, not protect religion from individuals in society!
Marvin Shilmer, "If you excuse something for one then you excuse it for all., Right?"
Based on that logic what happens to a gay person when he/she is refused to buy food at a supermarket.
It's not "my logic". It's Simon's words. Take it up with him.
My point is that social change takes time, and imposing harsh financial penalties onto an unsuspecting business person holding historically understandable personal religious views seems as questionable as the discriminatory behavior everyone is up in arms about.
Religious freedom goes both ways, Christians have rights too. Most Christian shops ( and other religions who oppose gay marriage ) have a FISH on the cards or door.
Let's take another example. If the government reinstates the draft, should conscientious objector status based on religious belief be denied?
Okay. I replaced it. I have this:
You did no such thing. Stop pretending.
It's not "my logic". It's Simon's words. Take it up with him.
You have twisted what I said and mis-applied it.
My application is that if you allow discrimination against anyone then you allow discrimination against everyone. That can include targeting the religious wanting to push to allow discrimination in the first place.
I hope that clarifies things so you don't accidentally misrepresent my opinion.
My point is that social change takes time, and imposing harsh financial penalties onto an unsuspecting business person holding historically understandable personal religious views seems as questionable as the discriminatory behavior everyone is up in arms about.
Change takes time but some people will never change however long you give them. They need some encouragement to adhere to basic standards of society.
The conservative religious right are not bind to the law - they knew the law and the florist concerned discriminated against the gay couple because of recent changes to the law.
Trying to paint them as a victim, unaware of what was going on is disingenuous.
I don't give a damn how "historical" the view are. That sort of nonsense excuses slavery and burning witches. Why is it that religion always needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world? Religion never changes unless it is forced to. They always seem to understand the concept of money though (no insistence on traditional bartering?) so it's the perfect thing to target to help educate them.
I'm neither sympathetic nor unsympathetic for this particular business owner. I'm more concerned about the question of personal liberty. If there's a store owner who wants to refuse service to someone then let them do so and let customers decide if they want to do business with such a person.
Said person is free to not open a store. If they do so, they agree to do so not being an asshole.
She was the one who suddenly decided to tell someone that she didn't want to serve them because of what they are.
That's not the story I read. It was not what they are that caused her refusal of service but, rather, the event they wanted her to service. She was already selling flowers to the gay customer. It was the wedding ceremony she objected to servicing.
A false equivalence as well as an unlikely scenario. The people getting married may be KKK members but it is not the KKK organization getting married. If it was some KKK event I think people would have the right to refuse it.
I haven't asserted an equivalence. I asked a question, and your response dodges that question.
A florist may sell to individuals she knows to be members of the KKK. But if those same members want her to service their wedding as a KKK event then what? Should the florist be forced under the law to service the event no matter how much it hurts her moral (read: religious) conscience?
If anything we need laws to protect society FROM religion, not protect religion from individuals in society!
I agree with that sentiment, but for now religion and religious taboos are a part of human society. This takes time, and I'm not convinced that burning the florist's business at the stake is necessary.
