Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
226 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [10] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Admitting I don't understand the other POV rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There are still two threads sporadically going on about the now vetoed AZ bill which would allow a business-owner to refuse a gay (etc.) person service for religious reasons and the case of the Denver, Colorado, bakery which refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. I took part in those and argued that:

1. I don't think it is relevant to religious freedom because making a cake for a couple one disapproves of is not forbidden by the Christian religion. It's just a case of "I don't want to be associated with X."

2. The business owner could just s well have had non-Christian employee do it and make clear that the fact the cake came from his bakery was not to be publicized.

I honestly want to hear out the other side. Why is this not simple discrimination? I.e., why could one not equate the circumstances exactly to a Christian who thinks all non-Christians are going to hell and so refuses to make a cake for a Hindu couple or to a racist Christian who refuses to make a cake for a black person?

Moreover how exactly is this a clear-cut case in the other side's opinion of infringing on freedom of religion? Namely, what specific act that the Christian cake-maker would have to do violates Christian principles and what are those specific principles?

Why couldn't a non-Christian employee have made the cake for example?
20 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Good luck.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
Why couldn't a non-Christian employee have made the cake for example?

It's likely that they wouldn't have any.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BJ, that's not actually very enlightening. Can you try using words?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chief Slovenly
United States
Burlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As a priest of Huitzilopochtli, this is the part of the calendar where I refuse to do any software engineering work unless I get to dance around a conference room wearing the skin of my flayed victims.

Laws of general applicability, my ass!
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Christians have a moral obligation not to enable sin. If you believe homosexuality is wrong, assisting a gay couple in throwing a wedding is not unlike, say, helping an alcoholic throw a kegger. Now, I'd you don't think homosexuality is immoral, you'll obviously have a problem with this analogy, but the point is that the underlying principle is "you shouldn't help people do wrong/hurt themselves".
5 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Hawaii
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
whac3 wrote:
BJ, that's not actually very enlightening. Can you try using words?


Sure. I thought you were a libertarian? You keep claiming to be one. This concept should be simple for you to grasp. Freedom to interact with your fellow human beings without interference of government should be integral to your belief system. As a libertarian, you should stand up for the rights of people to do things that personally you don't like. If you're just a "libertarian" and don't want the government involved when people are doing things you agree with, then you aren't a libertarian at all.

You misread. He's a librarian.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
whac3 wrote:
BJ, that's not actually very enlightening. Can you try using words?


Sure. I thought you were a libertarian? You keep claiming to be one. This concept should be simple for you to grasp. Freedom to interact with your fellow human beings without interference of government should be integral to your belief system. As a libertarian, you should stand up for the rights of people to do things that personally you don't like. If you're just a "libertarian" and don't want the government involved when people are doing things you agree with, then you aren't a libertarian at all.

I do? I claim I'm often called one and argue for a balance of individual liberties and minimalist gov't. So I see the individual rights of the couple and of the business owner clashing. The gov't was referred to as an arbiter of whose rights prevail and determined that the individual rights of gay people were violated and that the individual rights of business owners were not clearly violated. So what's this gotten to do with whether I've libertarian or not?

How is this big gov't? I just see conflicting individual rights.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fizzmore wrote:
Christians have a moral obligation not to enable sin. If you believe homosexuality is wrong, assisting a gay couple in throwing a wedding is not unlike, say, helping an alcoholic throw a kegger. Now, I'd you don't think homosexuality is immoral, you'll obviously have a problem with this analogy, but the point is that the underlying principle is "you shouldn't help people do wrong/hurt themselves".

Hmmm, I wonder if these Bakers ask if the wedding cakes are for second+ marriages? Somehow I doubt it...
14 
 Thumb up
0.30
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
dennis bennett
Germany
back in Frankfurt!
flag msg tools
designer
badge
more of my stuff at www.dennisthebadger.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
There are still two threads sporadically going on about the now vetoed AZ bill which would allow a business-owner to refuse a gay (etc.) person service for religious reasons and the case of the Denver, Colorado, bakery which refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. I took part in those and argued that:

1. I don't think it is relevant to religious freedom because making a cake for a couple one disapproves of is not forbidden by the Christian religion. It's just a case of "I don't want to be associated with X."

2. The business owner could just s well have had non-Christian employee do it and make clear that the fact the cake came from his bakery was not to be publicized.

I honestly want to hear out the other side. Why is this not simple discrimination? I.e., why could one not equate the circumstances exactly to a Christian who thinks all non-Christians are going to hell and so refuses to make a cake for a Hindu couple or to a racist Christian who refuses to make a cake for a black person?

Moreover how exactly is this a clear-cut case in the other side's opinion of infringing on freedom of religion? Namely, what specific act that the Christian cake-maker would have to do violates Christian principles and what are those specific principles?

Why couldn't a non-Christian employee have made the cake for example?


I'm not sure about this:

what if:

a) it is discrimination
b) discrimination is okay because it's just an aspect of "freedom of speech" or something like that
and
c) the issue needs to be resolved differently, for example by publicly shaming people who discriminate against other people by denying them some kind of business service (like not baking them a cake).

In a way i kind of like the idea of businesses (or generally "people") being allowed to deny services to whoever they like, simply because it makes them out themselves. How else would i as a consumer/customer know to avoid them?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
You're a statist thug.

Are the people that want to use the force of government to keep same sex people from marrying also statist thugs?
13 
 Thumb up
0.30
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Hawaii
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
You're a statist thug.

Are the people that want to use the force of government to keep same sex people from marrying also statist thugs?

Yes. I'm sure BJ agrees with me. Have you been paying attention?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Emma
United States
Finger Lakes
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Freedom to interact with your fellow human beings without interference of government should be integral to your belief system. As a libertarian, you should stand up for the rights of people to do things that personally you don't like. If you're just a "libertarian" and don't want the government involved when people are doing things you agree with, then you aren't a libertarian at all.


I'm an anarchist: I believe that the state as we know it should be abolished. In many ways this is similar to libertarianism, the main difference being our stances on capitalism and on the "personal freedoms" of corporations. But there is no reason an anarchist or a libertarian should advocate for laws within the current system that reinforce discrimination, because that doesn't really bring us closer to a word without interference from the state.

Avocating for a law that only seems to weaken the government in favor of the people is not a revolutionary act. The vetoed law doesn't weaken the government at all, it just puts its power behind those who would discriminate rather than those who wouldn't. It's just government sanctioned discrimination. This road goes both ways.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
You're a statist thug.

Are the people that want to use the force of government to keep same sex people from marrying also statist thugs?


God you're fucking awful. BJ has said on these boards literally dozens of times that he's in favor of gay marriage in spite of his religious convictions because to oppose it would run counter to his libertarian views. Do you even bother to read people's responses to your inane bullshit?
16 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jarredscott78 wrote:
jmilum wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
You're a statist thug.

Are the people that want to use the force of government to keep same sex people from marrying also statist thugs?

Yes. I'm sure BJ agrees with me. Have you been paying attention?

Sure, but I've never seen him call anyone here a statist thug for espousing that belief.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Hawaii
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Othila wrote:
The vetoed law doesn't weaken the government at all, it just puts its power behind those who would discriminate rather than those who wouldn't. It's just government sanctioned discrimination. This road goes both ways.

Are you implying that BJ supported the Arizona law?

BJ, did you support the Arizona law?


Or we can not derail.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
You're a statist thug.

Are the people that want to use the force of government to keep same sex people from marrying also statist thugs?


yes. next question.....

and as far as your false equivalence on second marriages - there are numerous methods for this to be "legal" under the various religions


Replying to OP - I think there needs to be a clear distinction

1) Does the baker/photographer/flower arranger/etc sell their goods and services to homosexuals?

2) Does the baker/photographer/flower arranger/etc object to the event itself (and finds same sex marriages objectionable)

If no to item number one - there there is a problem - and that is where the (false) equivalence towards Jim Crow has some viability.

If no to the second one, I see no problem. However, they should be prepared for the wrath of the marketplace (i.e. yelp reviews, bad press etc.)

Or to put it more clearly - the Government should not have an obligation to tell people what goods/services shall be delivered. It does have a (temporary) obligation to tell people what classes/groups of people should be sold to.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
and as far as your false equivalence on second marriages - there are numerous methods for this to be "legal" under the various religions

Do you think the Bakers check this out?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:


Or to put it more clearly - the Government should not have an obligation to tell people what goods/services shall be delivered. It does have a (temporary) obligation to tell people what classes/groups of people should be sold to.


This seems an awfully narrow line to walk, though, doesn't it? If your business is selling wedding stuff, and you refuse to service gay weddings, you sort of default to not servicing gay people, don't you?

Also, while Jeremy is a complete asshole and just the worst and I agree with anyone dismissing him out of hand, the second marriages question is one that ought to matter. Not to the government, but to the religious people themselves--is homosexuality a "special" sin? Is it worse than other sins? If so, what's the basis for that belief in their religion? If not, why is this the line they're choosing to draw while still selling their products to fornicators, drunks, liars, blasphemers, etc? I hate to see it wielded like a big "gotcha" the way ham-handed morons like Jeremy use it, but I do think it should be a legitimate part of the discussion.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
flag msg tools
All my sins are of omission
badge
Snob of the People
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bbenston wrote:
As a priest of Huitzilopochtli, this is the part of the calendar where I refuse to do any software engineering work unless I get to dance around a conference room wearing the skin of my flayed victims.
You're a software engineer?!? Good God, you disgust me.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Most Christians don't believe getting remarried after a divorce is inherently sinful (you come from a Catholic background, yes? They're quite different in the way they treat divorce, and I think the whole 'annulment' loophole is a bit of a farce). Now, you may think that they ought to believe that based on your interpretation of the Bible, but that doesn't really get at homosexuality being a 'special sin'.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fizzmore wrote:
Most Christians don't believe getting remarried after a divorce is inherently sinful (you come from a Catholic background, yes? They're quite different in the way they treat divorce, and I think the whole 'annulment' loophole is a bit of a farce). Now, you may think that they ought to believe that based on your interpretation of the Bible, but that doesn't really get at homosexuality being a 'special sin'.


No, not for everyone. I'm not catholic, I was raised Evangelical, the full crazy but without the delicious Jesus flesh.

My smaller point was that for a Catholic baker, getting remarried is just as much a sin as getting gay married. The larger point was that there has never been an outcry from Christians before to excuse themselves from "enabling sin" in this way. For instance, when my former boss started banging his next door neighbor and eventually dumped his wife and kids to marry the neighbor (who dumped her husband) instead, the baker didn't refuse to make them a cake. The pastor didn't refuse to perform the ceremony. They didn't have to sue the photographer to take their pictures. That sin didn't matter to anyone. I don't see a wave of support for Christians not having to enable sin, I see a desperate attempt to make it so Christians don't have to enable one particular sin. I can see BJ's stance. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it as a position and it's internally consistent. I can't see the religious take on it, though. If homosexuality isn't the big special sin, then what's the big deal? Why can you serve all manner of sinners and help glorify all manner of sins but this one thing is suddenly a big fucking deal?
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fizzmore wrote:
Most Christians don't believe getting remarried after a divorce is inherently sinful (you come from a Catholic background, yes? They're quite different in the way they treat divorce, and I think the whole 'annulment' loophole is a bit of a farce). Now, you may think that they ought to believe that based on your interpretation of the Bible, but that doesn't really get at homosexuality being a 'special sin'.

Yep, I'm catholic. But I started as Baptist and switched. The point still stands though, there are lots of sins, do you think the Bakers make sure they are not participating in any sin when baking a cake? Or just balk at the same sex marriage cake?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Utrecht wrote:


Or to put it more clearly - the Government should not have an obligation to tell people what goods/services shall be delivered. It does have a (temporary) obligation to tell people what classes/groups of people should be sold to.


This seems an awfully narrow line to walk, though, doesn't it? If your business is selling wedding stuff, and you refuse to service gay weddings, you sort of default to not servicing gay people, don't you?


I think there are two elements here

1) Retail sales - this must get sold to everyone
2) Supporting the event with a custom order/being on site.

The first would be discrimination - but the second would not.

Quote:

Also, while Jeremy is a complete asshole and just the worst and I agree with anyone dismissing him out of hand, the second marriages question is one that ought to matter. Not to the government, but to the religious people themselves--is homosexuality a "special" sin? Is it worse than other sins? If so, what's the basis for that belief in their religion? If not, why is this the line they're choosing to draw while still selling their products to fornicators, drunks, liars, blasphemers, etc? I hate to see it wielded like a big "gotcha" the way ham-handed morons like Jeremy use it, but I do think it should be a legitimate part of the discussion.


Agree with you on this - If, they are indeed citing their religious beliefs as the reason (and assuming judea-christian-muslim belief structure) and they don't refuse service to events for the "other sins" then they should

1) Publicly get called out on it - again bad publicity is a huge hammer
2) Investigated for discriminatory practices
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:

I honestly want to hear out the other side. Why is this not simple discrimination?


Ok ... let us try to frame this a bit differently... let us take the religion of the service provider out of it.

So one of those people who think that circumcision is child abuse and mutilation of infants happens to own a bakery. They live in an area that has a small but known Jewish population. They knowingly sell stuff to Jewish people all the time. But they refuse to make/sell items to celebrate a bris even though they do sell items for baby showers or adoption parties or other new born coming home celebrations. They object because they find the idea at the core of a bris to be barbaric.

So are they discriminating against Jews or refusing to participate in something they have a moral objection too? Does the fact that only Jews need items to celebrate a bris make it impossible for them to refuse to participate without it being discrimination against Jews as a protected class?

Now raise the stakes... let us say that the bakery owner does have religious beliefs that think that mutilation (as they see it) of a body part is deeply and morally wrong. So while they respect their neighbors rights to believe differently the idea of even tangentially being part of something like a bris makes them personally very upset if not actually ill with stress and tension.

Should they HAVE to provide goods for a bris?

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [10] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.