Jump to content
270soft Forum

Religious Protection Laws/ LGBT anti-discrimination Laws


jvikings1
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, EndOfCapitalism said:

Yes since in order for it to work best the whole world would become communist either simultaneously or within a short timeframe.

It still wouldn't work.  Communist countries have inevitably devolved into tyrannical cults of personality.  See Mao and Stalin and Castro and Kim Il-sung and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

8 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Since I found this thread I'm curious if @vcczar believes an adamantly anti-circumcision atheist should be forced to provide food for a circumcision ceremony(Jewish or otherwise).

Circumcision was apparently originally, in it's earliest tracable usage as a cultural or religious institution, an Ancient Egyptian practice (whose religion and culture are not actively practiced today) that probably influenced the Hebrews of Goshen during the period when the Pharoahs were still amicable to them and before they got paranoid and inflicted hard labour to keep them under control (the several generation gap of time between the end of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Since I found this thread I'm curious if @vcczar believes an adamantly anti-circumcision atheist should be forced to provide food for a circumcision ceremony(Jewish or otherwise).

I think any service should provide the service to everyone equally. As there should be no discrimination in the workplace, there should be no discrimination among consumers. Service can be denied for reasons of hygiene, behavioral (such as verbal or physical abuse or violence by a consumer), and other obvious reasons. As much as I hate White Supremacists, I think they should be served, so long as they're decent within the establishment (not threatening people or purposely provoking argument). Likewise, if a same-sex couple went into a business of someone critical of their lifestyle, they shouldn't shove it in their face by making out in front of the cash register, or something. On the whole: No discrimination at the workplace, and no discrimination to consumer, unless there are universal reasons for denying that service or that employment---such as violence, theft, sexual harassment, harassing customers, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/08/2015 at 9:22 PM, jvikings1 said:

What are your thoughts on the types of laws?

The non-discrimination laws are unconstitutional because this causes buisness owners to have to violate their religious beliefs (like in the cases of bakeries). There needs to be a national religious protection law or amendment to the Constitution making it illegal to force buisnesses to serve/ provide a service for people that have a lifestyle that goes against the religious views of the owners. Buisnesses must be protected against discrimination and their 1st amendment rights need to be protected.

The problem I have with this is that it would also rule the civil rights acts unconstitutional. The government cannot force you to provide service, right? I think that businesses are not people, and thusly do not have equal rights to people. We have already established that if your religious practice breaks the law, it is still illegal (cite: Native Americans and Peyote, other drugs, let alone when it is not only illegal but harms others. There is no legal precedent for business to have greater religious rights than people have civil rights, and this is a school of thought that I find to be flawed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@vcczar What if a Muslim baker that makes graphic cakes is asked to make a cake with Muhammed on it. Or a Muslim poster or custom shirt maker is asked to make a Muhammed shirt or poster?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

@vcczar What if a Muslim baker that makes graphic cakes is asked to make a cake with Muhammed on it. Or a Muslim poster or custom shirt maker is asked to make a Muhammed shirt or poster?

 

40 minutes ago, LokiLoki22 said:

The problem I have with this is that it would also rule the civil rights acts unconstitutional. The government cannot force you to provide service, right? I think that businesses are not people, and thusly do not have equal rights to people. We have already established that if your religious practice breaks the law, it is still illegal (cite: Native Americans and Peyote, other drugs, let alone when it is not only illegal but harms others. There is no legal precedent for business to have greater religious rights than people have civil rights, and this is a school of thought that I find to be flawed. 

 

4 hours ago, vcczar said:

I think any service should provide the service to everyone equally. As there should be no discrimination in the workplace, there should be no discrimination among consumers. Service can be denied for reasons of hygiene, behavioral (such as verbal or physical abuse or violence by a consumer), and other obvious reasons. As much as I hate White Supremacists, I think they should be served, so long as they're decent within the establishment (not threatening people or purposely provoking argument). Likewise, if a same-sex couple went into a business of someone critical of their lifestyle, they shouldn't shove it in their face by making out in front of the cash register, or something. On the whole: No discrimination at the workplace, and no discrimination to consumer, unless there are universal reasons for denying that service or that employment---such as violence, theft, sexual harassment, harassing customers, etc. 

 

5 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Since I found this thread I'm curious if @vcczar believes an adamantly anti-circumcision atheist should be forced to provide food for a circumcision ceremony(Jewish or otherwise).

The thing is, we could debate religious and conscientious corner cases till we're blue in the face. People who start going to private businesses looking to deliberately invoke or provoke those corner cases, however, are just trouble-makers and rabble-rousers and hooligans in the end and deserve no social respect - but, then again, so are business owners who take great pride and revelry in publically denying services to and shaming certain demographics at their businesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

@vcczar What if a Muslim baker that makes graphic cakes is asked to make a cake with Muhammed on it. Or a Muslim poster or custom shirt maker is asked to make a Muhammed shirt or poster?

I think if they work in any sort of industry where that is a realistic possibility, then they should be required to meet the consumer's demand. If they must, they can contract a non-Muslim to do it. Although, in your scenario it might be an act of provocation, and if perversely sought, then I think the consumer is liable to face charges for a hate crime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

38 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think if they work in any sort of industry where that is a realistic possibility, then they should be required to meet the consumer's demand. If they must, they can contract a non-Muslim to do it. Although, in your scenario it might be an act of provocation, and if perversely sought, then I think the consumer is liable to face charges for a hate crime. 

How exactly is asking someone to make a shirt a hate crime? Sure he's acting like a jerk but let's please not conflate that with the Florida man who was recently arrested for buying a bunch of guns and planning to "shoot up muslims" to "give them a taste of their own medicine" (see here). If he's deliberately trying to start something he can be arrested for disturbing the peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

 

How exactly is asking someone to make a shirt a hate crime? Sure he's acting like a jerk but let's please not conflate that with the Florida man who was recently arrested for buying a bunch of guns and planning to "shoot up muslims" to "give them a taste of their own medicine" (see here). If he's deliberately trying to start something he can be arrested for disturbing the peace.

It's a hate crime if someone is purposely humiliating or provoking someone because they are Arab or because they are Muslim. Maybe crime isn't the right word. Perhaps Hate Felony would be better. One doesn't have to kill for it to be a crime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

 

How exactly is asking someone to make a shirt a hate crime? Sure he's acting like a jerk but let's please not conflate that with the Florida man who was recently arrested for buying a bunch of guns and planning to "shoot up muslims" to "give them a taste of their own medicine" (see here). If he's deliberately trying to start something he can be arrested for disturbing the peace.

 

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

It's a hate crime if someone is purposely humiliating or provoking someone because they are Arab or because they are Muslim. Maybe crime isn't the right word. Perhaps Hate Felony would be better. One doesn't have to kill for it to be a crime. 

The U.S. Bill of Rights, in the modern day, is used as a justification (and shield from consequences) for liking like a trouble-making, anti-social, shit-disturbing, prank-pulling, limits-testing ass than it is for any of it's real, original, intended purposes. THIS is true social degeneration, although social conservatives turn a blind to it, for some reason, because same-sex marriage, legal abortion and euthanasia, gender identity, and non-Christian recognition at all are the SUM TOTAL of social generation to them - probably because all other things that could be reasonably justified as such serves the social conservative agendas or makes big corporations a lot of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/08/2015 at 4:15 AM, jvikings1 said:

You cannot force someone to violate their religious beliefs because they are protected through the 1st amendment. Those laws also lead to discrimination and targeting of Christian buisnesses. Religious rights have to be protected because they are guaranteed by the Constitution. If the people want a cake, then they can go to a different bakery, but these court rulings that force Chistians buisnesses to pay heavy fines because they followed their beliefs are outrageous and unconsitutional rulings.

Interesting remark, but the Supreme Court assimilated and will continue to tell you that it's not only a question of anti discrimination but also a question of equality between citizens

And from where it becomes it, it becomes Constitutionnal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2015‎-‎08‎-‎19 at 5:32 PM, jvikings1 said:

Actually, the businesses do not get shut down when their rights are violated. When these courts violate the first amendment, these businesses got donations from around the US to help them pay and they stay open. They serve gays. They do not serve gay weddings. You have to get this right when arguing about this. They do serve gays and do not discriminate on that fact. They just do not do gay weddings because their religion do not believe in gay weddings. Make sure and look at the facts.

There are quite a few reasons (some more socially defensible than others) to deny business service to someone for any reason they would to anyone else because of their sexual orientation. Machismo patriarchal aggressive behaviour, personal insecurity of one's own sexuality (psychologically speaking, a huge source of homophobia transphobia in the modern day), following a fair number of religions (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and quite a few others), but being a properly practicing Christian and following the actual Ministry of Christ as written (and NOT as preached by militant, belligerent, greed, wrath, and pride (three of the seven deadly sins) consumed Evangelical faux Christian preachers, is not one of one, and using "Christian convictions" for that, or many other such acts of hate, vindication, judgement, severity, and lack of forgiveness and charity is using the Lord's name in vane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Presidentinsertname said:

Gay rights but baker should have the right to denial  who they wants (I won' shop at a bakery that ever did that))

But if they're going to quote religious freedom of being Christians or "Christian convictions" to do so, they're not good, arguably not Christians at all, and giving a bad name to the religion. Then again, there are a VERY large number of these faux Christians running around preaching un-Christian or even anti-Christian in vane name of Christianity. Strangely, the same goes for faux Moslem groups (like Wahabbis and bases for modern "Islamists" and especially "Islamist" terrorist groups in the modern world). One of the real tragedies is that a lot of the uninformed public opinion in the world blindly believes the much more vocal faux Christians and Moslems are the true representatives of the religions and their doctrines, with predictable results of the world's shifting viewpoints of those faiths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...