sc94597 said:
Wonktonodi said:
1. Yes I am aware I was putting in hypotheticals, however you were getting it to the point where you make it sound like the bakery is the wedding planner. I know churches can refuse wedding, on the flip side there were gay wedding at churches long before it legal under the law.
The big questions. 1. Does it really matter whether or not it is the same as other people's religious views? not all religions are recognised and some states tried to ban other religious laws. 2. Why do the views even have to be religious? well acourding to the new law in Indiana they do. 3. Why can't people refuse to do something based on their personal morals and ethic system? While many people can refuse service to anyone, it's why and how they do it that can be the issue. When you have established a business in our society there are pocedures you need to go through and rules you have to follow. Or there can be legal repricussions. There are ways for pepole who want to refuse to do things based on their own personal beleif systems, stay outside the system that doesn't allow for them to discriminate based on them.
2. Gay here as well, still think it was stupid. Yes they might view it as a cosequence of gay marrage but it's still a serarate issue. Yes desire for the law didn't come out of nothing, but it's still going through a legislature and not from the people.
I don't expect the government to take care of the oppressed I demand it, I fight for it sometimes things go well sometimes not. Prop 8 passed here in CA in 2008 by the will of the people but the courts are what struck it down. Yes governments have also done much wrong, but there are tools there that are more efective than boycott after boycott pressuring one busineess after another. Especially when sometime now there is a market for those who do descriminate.
|
1. In the United States the first amendment prevents favoring one religious view over another. So recognizition doesn't matter. 2. I disagree with the specification then and therefore the law. 3. Isn't that the same argument you guys have had problem with, that one shouldn't have to leave if they don't feel comfortable? I personally believe freedom of association should be a thing, and it shouldn't have limitations. Conflicts are massively reduced in that instance.
2. I think consistency is important. The only reason why there is such a large scale division between LGBT and the religious right is because it is fueled by politics. If the situation became apolitical it would slowly become a non-issue as the generations who hold such archaic beliefs die out.
|
1. That hardly stops places from favoring christianity over other religions with various laws, and recognition matters to many for tax statuses as no profits or not.
2. good, though I know you'd want a law that could let anyone refuse service to anyone or group, hopefully you'd at least require it to be posted 3. leaving the system so you can have full control over your clientel is hardly the same as leaving a comunitty because people there won't sever you based on sexual orientation. one is finding the legal way to do thing (avoiding legal procedures but not being able to hide liabilities behind a company), the other is leaving because of not getting servises.
There is a large scale devision, not because of politics, but through politics. It's fueled by the LBGT movement demanding equal rights. It will only become non political after it becomes more of a non issue.
