By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Political Spectrum quiz

shikamaru317 said:
JWeinCom said:

Didn't answer the question. They are not different things at all, they are the exact same thing. Refusing to sell a cake based on beliefs. The only potential difference is that one person claims their beliefs are religious, but perhaps they are lying, or perhaps the other person also cites religious beliefs. To my knowledge (I am no biblical scholar), there is nothing in the bible that is against interracial marriage. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the Bible speaks in favor of it in several places. Some verses that seem to be against interracial marriage are actually against interfaith marriage, and those verses are mainly in the old Testament. The new Testament seems to speak in favor of interracial marriage, as long as the other person is a Christian. So, I'm not sure that a Christian cake shop would have much of a leg to stand on claiming religious beliefs as a reason for not making a cake for an interracial marriage. 

If you don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple because you're uncomfortable because of the bible, and I don't want to because I think gay people are icky, is it ok for you not for me? Is discrimination ok if it's religious? I'd say that one is a clear instance of religious rights, while the other is simply an instance of being bigoted. Thinking that gay people "are icky" doesn't feel like a valid reason to deny an LGBT customer, it just feels bigoted and wrong. On the other hand if you feel like you would be sinning in the eyes of the Lord if you participated in an LGBT wedding by making the wedding cake, I don't feel like it would be right for the Government to force you to Sin, especially when there are plenty of other cake shops out there that the LGBT customer could go to. 

The only way requiring a baker to sell a cake is a violation of freedom of religion is if you argue that selling a cake to a gay couple implies acceptance or support of gay marriage. Then why wouldn't forcing me to sell a cake to a gay couple also be endorsing gay marriage, and therefore be a violation of my freedom of speech? I suppose in a way it would

Can a baker refuse to sell a wedding cake for a second marriage or an interfaith marriage? There is strong biblical arguments against both of these things. So, a baker can refuse on these grounds as well I presume? I suppose so. You are correct that their are biblical arguments against both, so I suppose that if a baker didn't feel comfortable making a cake for an interfaith or second marriage because he felt like he would be participating in sin, it would be wrong for the government to force him to make the cake, just the same as it would be wrong for the government to force it for an LGBT wedding.

But, why do the bible verses matter? If I thought god opposed gay marriage but didn't have any bible verses to support that, would that then not be ok? If we require a biblical or otherwise scriptural argument, or require that a view is couched in a mainstream religion, then that is a clear violation of the establishment clause. I feel like you need some sources if you are going to claim that something is wrong on religious grounds. I don't think it would be ok to claim that God is against something when you have nothing but your own word to back it up. If that was the case, God's name could be used to commit many evils (as has been done in the past). 

So then, lets say I believe that interracial relationships are sinful and opposed by god. Furthermore, I believe that black people are actually a race created by the devil to taint humanity, and to serve them at all is offensive to god. I deny service to any black person and refuse to sell any baked goods to an interracial couple based on these beliefs. Are you ok with that? Negatory. Like I said above, I think you need sources if you are going to claim religious beliefs as a reason for doing or not doing something. You can't just make up your own religion as an excuse to hide your own bigotry, too much potential for abuse.

If not, suppose that I took a polygraph test that indicates that I sincerely believe these things. Is it ok now? They would still be your personal beliefs, if you can't back them up with sources from a Holy book, I don't really think you would have a leg to stand on. Same goes for other religions besides Christianity, I don't feel like it would be right for the government to force anybody to do something that is against their own religious beliefs, as long as it is an established religion and not just something that somebody made up. I think it would be just as wrong to force a Hindu person to eat beef or a Jew to eat pork, as it would be to force a Christian to make an LGBT wedding cake if they felt like they would be in Sin if they participated in an LGBT wedding by making the cake.

I don't want to get too deep into this (I typically avoid the politics forum for a reason, I just find it draining) but I will do my best to answer each of your points in bold above. May do further replies, and then again I may not. 

In the end, I think we are getting into pretty deep issues here. What to do when inalienable rights seem to contradict one another. Far wiser men than me debate these things and can never seem to come up with a clear answer. In the end, I think it is best to just try to be kind to one another as much as possible. If you're gay person and a Christian baker doesn't feel comfortable making a cake for your wedding on religious grounds, try and respect their belief and just go somewhere else. On the other hand, if you're the baker and don't feel comfortable doing so, try to explain why as nicely as possible, and tell the gay customer that they would probably be better off going elsewhere, and have a list of nearby LGBT friendly bakers ready to assist them. The whole world runs much smoother if people try and understand one another and try and be courteous to one another.

Firstly, nobody is forcing anyone to make a cake. You have the option of not being a baker. If you are a baker, you can be reasonably sure that something you bake will be enjoyed at some kind of occasion you do not approve of. Keep in mind, that the cake being ordered was a completely normal wedding cake, that did not have any special pro gay message or anything. Now, if a baker was questioning every person they gave a cake to about the nature of their party, and then morally evaluating each one, there'd be a slightly better case. You can be a baker that only caters to a narrow clientele. But, if you're going to put yourself out there as a business that serves the public, there are responsibilities that kick in. It's not like forcing a Jewish person to eat pork. It's like requiring a Jewish person who applied for a job at McDonalds to serve customers cheeseburgers. (There is also specific commandment against eating non-kosher foods, and not one against selling cakes to people who are celebrating things you don't like, so even on purely scriptural grounds that's a pretty weak comparison).

It seems to me what you're saying that if a belief is part of an "established" religion, then it is a sufficient ground for discrimination. And this is in absolute direct conflict with the first amendment. Saying that a religious belief that is somehow justified by a holy book is a valid basis for discrimination, while a religious belief that is completely sincere but not based on a holy book is not a valid basis is establishing scriptural religions above all others.

Presumably, you are also referring to mainstream religions, and if a guy in 1960 wrote a book about what God commands and I read and completely believed in it, that would not meet your standards... So, you do not have freedom to practice religions, just freedom to practice specific government endorsed religions. That's a big no-no.

And there is also a huge problem of interpretation. There are verses as you said that can be interpreted as against interracial marriage. If one sincerely believes that is the position the bible supports, then can a court tell them they're wrong? Should the courts be in the business of determining acceptable interpretations of scripture? As a religious person, I'd assume you would not want that. 

If you are arguing that there should be a specific religious exemption for bakers the ONLY rational test there could be is whether the exempted person sincerely believes in the reason they're giving. Any other kind of test puts the government in the position of deeming what religious views are acceptable and which are not, which is the exact thing the first amendment is supposed to prevent.

Moreover, I don't understand why it should matter at all whether the belief is based in religion or not. If I can not discriminate against gay people because I think what they're doing is immoral, why does it become ok to do so because I think that god thinks its immoral? Why is it ok to "force" me to do something only if I can't point to a holy book or divine being that says it's not ok?

If people can refuse service, then the only possible logically consistent standard can be that they can refuse service when performing that service would violate their sincerely held moral beliefs. This would effectively legalize any kind of racism or discrimination. But, if you want to give that right to the Christian bakers, you have to give it to everyone.

Alternatively of course, you can hold that discrimination against certain protected classes is prohibited regardless of personal beliefs. A much better standard. The risk of someone having to sell a cake that will be eaten at an event they disapprove of is far less than the risk of discrimination which history tells us will occur if allowed.

Lastly, it's odd that both of your examples of understanding involve the gay couple "understanding" the baker's position. It also assumes there are plenty of bakers around, which may not be the case in all areas. And, if this applies to wedding cakes, it could easily apply in various other contexts. For instance, jobs, where denial on the basis of gender/orientation could be devastating. The reason we have the laws we do is because of our history with segregation and the damage that caused. A religious basis doesn't change the potential harm.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 04 January 2021

Around the Network

The sad truth is that the first amendment is often weaponized by orthodox Christians, and politicians looking to court Christian voters, to give Christians a right that would otherwise not exist: the right to publicly discriminate against people they do not like. Those of more moderate faith are less inclined to care, as they are a part of the majority religion, and thus not directly affected, and in their majority, Christians wield an unmatched political and legal advantage to abuse this as much as possible.

The supporters of this right of discrimination often claim "we would support this if it were any other religion", which is a bold-faced lie. And they go so far as to cry retaliation when people choose to not do business with them over their track record of discrimination. See Fulton vs City of Philadelphia, where Philadelphia stopped referring foster children to a Catholic agency after repeat violations of the city's anti-discrimination laws. The Catholic agency sued claiming their first amendment rights were violated. What about the rights of the potential parents who were discriminated against? Couldn't they have sued the city for doing business with agencies knowingly violating the anti-discrimination laws?

The First amendment protects your private practice of your religion from being persecuted by the government. It does not protect you in a public space. Otherwise we are distinguishing a class-based system where you are either a mainstream Christian, or you are not.

On topic, I am inclined to agree with consensus that the survey's questions are kind of loaded. While surveys like this do need extreme questions to set a baseline, there too many of the extreme questions, and even some of the more moderate ones were worded in a way to try to evoke a specific knee-jerk response.

That being said, I am a little surprised by my result.  I am more centrist, probably closer to the green indicator in all aspects, except maybe "culture war".  But that is the nuance that gets lost when the questions are designed to put you in one of two extreme buckets.

Bandorr said:

That is a very odd quiz...
Feels like it has a massive right-leaning bent to it.
And a specially aggressive religious one.

The questions are also pretty damn vague.
"The state should not set a minimum wage" is lacking in context. Does that mean there should be a federal one.. or not one at all?

Also some of them seem like a joke "Some people should not be allowed to reproduce. Amusing at first. Then you start to think of the laws required to enforce that it is a nightmare.

"Gay marriage should be forbidden." is loading the gun before cocking it. It isn't "what is your thoughts on gay marriage" it heavily leans one way and expects people to counter-balance it by disagreeing.

And they have a lot of questions about "morals" but no definition or discussion of what is moral.

Others are just offensive "An official language should be set, and immigrants should have to learn it.". What would be the mechanism required to enforce the "should HAVE" to part of that?

Plus it makes leaps from "It is human nature to prefer one's own race." to "Racial issues will never be resolved.". You can prefer your own race without being racist against another.


oh and the images.

Yeah, the quiz is presumptous and US centric.
Reduce the military spending bill? Not every country spends 47656735534 trillion per second on the military.
Some questions I felt didn't have an apprpriate answer because it didn't accont for other relevant factors, etc.

Anyway, while I take the accuracy of any online quiz with a huge grain of salt, I got these results.
Similar to a lot of ppl it seems.

Last edited by Hiku - on 04 January 2021

Kinda seems a lot of people got similar results to mine. 

As others have pointed out this felt very directed at americans, so I had a lot of neutral stances or several issues I had strong opinions about I marked as not mattering that much since they are non issues to me. 

Around the Network

Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: Top 12: Best Games on the N64 - Special Features, Episode 7

The idea that the media needs to be "balanced" is I feel an indirectly destructive one.

Lies don't deserve to be given the same coverage and respect as the truth.

Ignorance doesn't deserve to be given the same coverage and respect as expertise.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 04 January 2021

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

Ka-pi96 said:
shikamaru317 said:

Border issues wise, I'm also not a big fan of illegal immigration.

Is anybody pro illegal immigration?

Free-market capitalists, for one.  

Last edited by SuaveSocialist - on 04 January 2021

Ka-pi96 said:
shikamaru317 said:

Border issues wise, I'm also not a big fan of illegal immigration.

Is anybody pro illegal immigration?

Well, maybe business owners that want cheap (borderline slave) labour are. But regular folk?

There's a question in the quiz that asked about working non-citizens.
I think some ppl jump to the conclusion that a non-citizen = illegal immigrant.
But that's not the case. Whether they are awaiting sitizenship (which can take many years), on a working visa, etc.

Last edited by Hiku - on 04 January 2021