Equality and Tolerance: A Purely Objective View

[NYcarbineer]

Sorry but if a gay wants to buy some M&M's from your store you have to sell it to them. And if you, an infidel, go to a store with a muslim manager they have to sell you groceries.

If you don't like it there are several countries in the world experimenting in segregation and discrimination. They are in the middle east and Africa, the most wonderful places in the world

But a muslim store can fire an employee for eating a BLT. It's happened.

Where.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The right to discriminate and the right not to be diiscriminated against cannot co-exist where one stands against the other.

You have to pick a side. You have to deny one party or the other their 'happiness' as the OP calls it.

No, actually, you don't. The courts in this country have, from the very beginning, been 'balancing' the rights of all citizens. This issue will be no different.

Okay, tell us what the 'balanced' decision is between a gay person wanting to eat in a restaurant,

and the Christian owner telling him to get out, we don't serve gays, it's against my religion.

 

[SAYIT]

Interesting. If I ever had the power, perhaps I should force each of you to work against what you believe. Tolerate what you don't accept, believe in what you don't want to believe. Then you yourselves would be howling about how unfair and oppressive it is.

That is EXACTLY why liberals are fighting so hard to prevent conservatives from gaining that power.

Libs seek power for the same reason Cons do ... to abuse it.
"Jeffrey Pelt: Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open." - Hunt For Red October

 

[SAYIT]

If Homosexuals want to be accepted, they need to some accepting. Otherwise this perpetual cycle of hatred and intolerance will continue. Nobody likes to be forced to do anything, but somehow one group can foist themselves and their lifestyles on another with utter impunity. What would you rather do, breed further hostility? Or come to a mutual understanding?

Allowing bigotry to flourish by putting it in a costume of religion is what will perpetuate a cycle of hatred and intolerance.

1. You want to expand what qualifies as a religious belief to whatever someone claiming to be religious says is part of their religious beliefs.

2. You want religious beliefs, and the actions stemming from them, to be unlimiited civil rights, unassailable by the government.

3. The result? You get what the Supreme Court warned against in Reynolds v United States, the case that upheld the outlawing of polygamy:


...the only question which remains is whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free.

This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.

Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

Sadly, there is a considerable support on the Right nowadays for exactly what the last paragraph is warning us of.

Reynolds v. United States - 98 U.S. 145 (1878) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

A Pennsylvania couple was recently sentenced to prison for practicing faith-healing to the exclusion of medical care for their kids after a 2nd (of 6, I believe) child died of a very treatable disease.

 

[Coyote]

Objectively speaking...Jesus didn't discriminate. He served everyone didn't he? He turned no one away.

Why would Christians choose to discriminate?

He turned Satan away, did he not? He cast out demons in his name, did he not? Even still he was merciful even to the demons who begged him to let them possess a herd of pigs. He let them. Jesus made the discrimination between righteousness and sinfulness did he not? Funny how you have this idyllic view of Jesus, but have no clue what he was actually like. He cast the moneychangers out of the synagogue with a whip, exclaiming "this is my father's house, not a den of thieves!" Should he not be condemned for kicking people out of a place of worship?

No, he did a lot of discriminating. If he was all accepting there would have been no point for him to come to Earth to die on the cross for the sins of mankind, Coyote. Nor would he have performed his miracles, fed the hungry or healed the sick or afflicted. Sorry, he isn't the type of person you're portraying him to be.

Satan wasn't a human.

Jesus refused no one who came to him.

Nowhere did it say anything about him casting out homosexuals.

If Christians are going to discrimminate in Jesus' name - why is that discrimmination limited to homosexual customers? Why is homosexuality singled out when there is nothing in Jesus' words that does that? I think it's a false discrimmination done in his name.

 

[Seawytch]

Objectively speaking...Jesus didn't discriminate. He served everyone didn't he? He turned no one away.

Why would Christians choose to discriminate?

He turned Satan away, did he not? He cast out demons in his name, did he not? Even still he was merciful even to the demons who begged him to let them possess a herd of pigs. He let them. Jesus made the discrimination between righteousness and sinfulness did he not? Funny how you have this idyllic view of Jesus, but have no clue what he was actually like. He cast the moneychangers out of the synagogue with a whip, exclaiming "this is my father's house, not a den of thieves!" Should he not be condemned for kicking people out of a place of worship?

No, he did a lot of discriminating. If he was all accepting there would have been no point for him to come to Earth to die on the cross for the sins of mankind, Coyote. Nor would he have performed his miracles, fed the hungry or healed the sick or afflicted. Sorry, he isn't the type of person you're portraying him to be.

Satan wasn't a human.

Jesus refused no one who came to him.

Nowhere did it say anything about him casting out homosexuals.

If Christians are going to discrimminate in Jesus' name - why is that discrimmination limited to homosexual customers? Why is homosexuality singled out when there is nothing in Jesus' words that does that? I think it's a false discrimmination done in his name.

Jesus spoke out quite vehemently against divorce. I wonder if these bakers and florists also refuse divorcees?

 

[Sunshine]

Sorry but if a gay wants to buy some M&M's from your store you have to sell it to them. And if you, an infidel, go to a store with a muslim manager they have to sell you groceries.

If you don't like it there are several countries in the world experimenting in segregation and discrimination. They are in the middle east and Africa, the most wonderful places in the world

But a muslim store can fire an employee for eating a BLT. It's happened.

Where.

Orlando.

Woman Says She Lost Job For Eating Bacon - Orlando Sentinel

 

[Sunshine]

The right to discriminate and the right not to be diiscriminated against cannot co-exist where one stands against the other.

You have to pick a side. You have to deny one party or the other their 'happiness' as the OP calls it.

No, actually, you don't. The courts in this country have, from the very beginning, been 'balancing' the rights of all citizens. This issue will be no different.

Okay, tell us what the 'balanced' decision is between a gay person wanting to eat in a restaurant,

and the Christian owner telling him to get out, we don't serve gays, it's against my religion.

It will be balanced against the religious beliefs of the business owner. Just like with the pharmacist who thinks it wrong to dispense birth control pills. You seem to be unaware that everyone has rights, not just those who belong to the crusade of the day. There is no way to tell someone is gay unless they tell they are gay. So, if someone struts in the door making an issue of their gayness, then the business owner has the right to make an issue of the fact that according to his religion homosexuality is wrong. And you best take a step back from this one. Christians aren't the only ones who believe this way. It is entirely possible that the first of such cases is tested by a muslim business owner.

 

[Sunshine]

If Homosexuals want to be accepted, they need to some accepting. Otherwise this perpetual cycle of hatred and intolerance will continue. Nobody likes to be forced to do anything, but somehow one group can foist themselves and their lifestyles on another with utter impunity. What would you rather do, breed further hostility? Or come to a mutual understanding?

Allowing bigotry to flourish by putting it in a costume of religion is what will perpetuate a cycle of hatred and intolerance.

1. You want to expand what qualifies as a religious belief to whatever someone claiming to be religious says is part of their religious beliefs.

2. You want religious beliefs, and the actions stemming from them, to be unlimiited civil rights, unassailable by the government.

3. The result? You get what the Supreme Court warned against in Reynolds v United States, the case that upheld the outlawing of polygamy:


...the only question which remains is whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free.

This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.

Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

Sadly, there is a considerable support on the Right nowadays for exactly what the last paragraph is warning us of.

Reynolds v. United States - 98 U.S. 145 (1878) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

A Pennsylvania couple was recently sentenced to prison for practicing faith-healing to the exclusion of medical care for their kids after a 2nd (of 6, I believe) child died of a very treatable disease.

Look up the snake handling cases. The snake handlers lost on all counts.

Star-News - Google News Archive Search

If anyone, a neighbor or a doctor, knew what was going on with this child and didn't report the family to the authorities then they aided and abetted this crime.

And adult can refuse life saving treatment for him/herself. But not for anyone else. If there is another party involved then the state has an interest in the case and can court order the person to have treatment.

 

[Sunshine]

Objectively speaking...Jesus didn't discriminate. He served everyone didn't he? He turned no one away.

Why would Christians choose to discriminate?

He turned Satan away, did he not? He cast out demons in his name, did he not? Even still he was merciful even to the demons who begged him to let them possess a herd of pigs. He let them. Jesus made the discrimination between righteousness and sinfulness did he not? Funny how you have this idyllic view of Jesus, but have no clue what he was actually like. He cast the moneychangers out of the synagogue with a whip, exclaiming "this is my father's house, not a den of thieves!" Should he not be condemned for kicking people out of a place of worship?

No, he did a lot of discriminating. If he was all accepting there would have been no point for him to come to Earth to die on the cross for the sins of mankind, Coyote. Nor would he have performed his miracles, fed the hungry or healed the sick or afflicted. Sorry, he isn't the type of person you're portraying him to be.

Satan wasn't a human.

Jesus refused no one who came to him.

Nowhere did it say anything about him casting out homosexuals.

If Christians are going to discrimminate in Jesus' name - why is that discrimmination limited to homosexual customers? Why is homosexuality singled out when there is nothing in Jesus' words that does that? I think it's a false discrimmination done in his name.

You don't know your Bible very well. Jesus' words regarding this have been posted repeatedly on this forum.

 

[Sunshine]

He turned Satan away, did he not? He cast out demons in his name, did he not? Even still he was merciful even to the demons who begged him to let them possess a herd of pigs. He let them. Jesus made the discrimination between righteousness and sinfulness did he not? Funny how you have this idyllic view of Jesus, but have no clue what he was actually like. He cast the moneychangers out of the synagogue with a whip, exclaiming "this is my father's house, not a den of thieves!" Should he not be condemned for kicking people out of a place of worship?

No, he did a lot of discriminating. If he was all accepting there would have been no point for him to come to Earth to die on the cross for the sins of mankind, Coyote. Nor would he have performed his miracles, fed the hungry or healed the sick or afflicted. Sorry, he isn't the type of person you're portraying him to be.

Satan wasn't a human.

Jesus refused no one who came to him.

Nowhere did it say anything about him casting out homosexuals.

If Christians are going to discrimminate in Jesus' name - why is that discrimmination limited to homosexual customers? Why is homosexuality singled out when there is nothing in Jesus' words that does that? I think it's a false discrimmination done in his name.

Jesus spoke out quite vehemently against divorce. I wonder if these bakers and florists also refuse divorcees?

That is completely ridiculous. Unless they were having a divorce reception, the baker would not be required to participate in the event. And just like gays, unless they customer makes and issue of it no one can possibly know.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why must one person's happiness come at the sacrifice of another's?

Well at times because one's person ceiling is another man's floor, lad.

Other times that is not the case.

So why must a man of faith be the floor in this case?

No ‘man of faith’ is ‘on the floor,’ that’s the simple fact you either refuse or are incapable of understanding.

 

[paperview]

But a muslim store can fire an employee for eating a BLT. It's happened.

Where.

Orlando.

Woman Says She Lost Job For Eating Bacon - Orlando Sentinel

Your own link proves you wrong.

Who is surprised?

 

[Bfgrn]

But a muslim store can fire an employee for eating a BLT. It's happened.

Where.

Orlando.

Woman Says She Lost Job For Eating Bacon - Orlando Sentinel

LOL...I see that you right wingers are using Islamic dogma as your model. Just as I thought, two peas in a pod.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But a muslim store can fire an employee for eating a BLT. It's happened.

Where.

Orlando.

Woman Says She Lost Job For Eating Bacon - Orlando Sentinel

Tell us how her lawsuit came out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where.

Orlando.

Woman Says She Lost Job For Eating Bacon - Orlando Sentinel

Your own link proves you wrong.

Who is surprised?

The kicker is that based on how these conservatives want things to be, the Musliim could fire someone for eating pork.

 

[Kosh]

The far left does not have an objective view on anything. And as you can see by this board they aren't tolerant of anything or anyone that is not far left.

There is no such thing as equality it is an illusion. Most want to be special and treated like they are special and many will use the government (the far left) do such things. It is more about political slavery than it is about equality and tolerance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If Homosexuals want to be accepted, they need to some accepting. Otherwise this perpetual cycle of hatred and intolerance will continue. Nobody likes to be forced to do anything, but somehow one group can foist themselves and their lifestyles on another with utter impunity. What would you rather do, breed further hostility? Or come to a mutual understanding?

Allowing bigotry to flourish by putting it in a costume of religion is what will perpetuate a cycle of hatred and intolerance.

1. You want to expand what qualifies as a religious belief to whatever someone claiming to be religious says is part of their religious beliefs.

2. You want religious beliefs, and the actions stemming from them, to be unlimiited civil rights, unassailable by the government.

3. The result? You get what the Supreme Court warned against in Reynolds v United States, the case that upheld the outlawing of polygamy:


...the only question which remains is whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free.

This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.

Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

Sadly, there is a considerable support on the Right nowadays for exactly what the last paragraph is warning us of.

Reynolds v. United States - 98 U.S. 145 (1878) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

A Pennsylvania couple was recently sentenced to prison for practicing faith-healing to the exclusion of medical care for their kids after a 2nd (of 6, I believe) child died of a very treatable disease.

TemplarKormac, in another thread, claimed that the above case was wrongly decided, and that polygamy should be legal.

The beautiful irony of that is that it's almost always the anti-gay marriage people like him who are arguing that legalizing same sex marriage would lead to the legalization of polygamy.

 

[Bfgrn]

The far left does not have an objective view on anything. And as you can see by this board they aren't tolerant of anything or anyone that is not far left.

There is no such thing as equality it is an illusion. Most want to be special and treated like they are special and many will use the government (the far left) do such things. It is more about political slavery than it is about equality and tolerance.

Two of your 'ilk' clearly stated your case:

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

Jesus used physical force and beat the crap out of people that offended him, would you prefer that approach?

 

[Kosh]

The far left does not have an objective view on anything. And as you can see by this board they aren't tolerant of anything or anyone that is not far left.

There is no such thing as equality it is an illusion. Most want to be special and treated like they are special and many will use the government (the far left) do such things. It is more about political slavery than it is about equality and tolerance.

Two of your 'ilk' clearly stated your case:

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

Jesus used physical force and beat the crap out of people that offended him, would you prefer that approach?

And the far left comes in and proves my point for me.

Got to love it when a plan comes together.