DescentBB

Ferno wrote:

Spidey wrote: The context of the entire thread is business, slick was the first to take a tangent into employees.

so responding to your question is "following slicks lead". I see. So if I respond to any questions, on-topic or otherwise, posed by whoever, i'm "following slicks lead".

guess you're guilty of that too. That line of logic is really, really idiotic.

hell, I go away for a day and now I'm the freaking Pied Piper of DBB. Yeesh!

Yeah apparently so, even though i've demonstrated time and time again that I follow no one's lead. Honestly, that thought is pretty revolting.

Guess they need someone to blame when their defenses fall flat.

I can tell most of you do not own a business. If it was me, I'd say ok, I'll do the job but:

1) I have so much work that I'm afraid I won't be able to get to it until after your proposed date of delivery.

2) Deliver a sub par product. This happens to enough gays word will get around that you don't do good work

3) You will be closed for vacation, so sorry, won't be able to get to it. If they can wait you can do it when you get back

So you see, there are creative ways to refuse the work without actually refusing it.

Heh, I suppose honesty in bigotry is a bit too much to ask.

Vander wrote:Heh, I suppose honesty in bigotry is a bit too much to ask.

yeah, damn shame that bigots don't put the brainpower into empathy and compassion that they do into excuse-making, huh?

callmeslick wrote:Since 2009, unemployment has dropped, the stock market has soared, millions of uninsured have gotten health coverage, and Osama bin Laden has been killed. For a man who doesn't love America, our President sure doesn't know how to show it--Andy Borowitz

Slick, you can admit at least to himself, that America only like the Americans?

not sure if what you're asking is answered by this, but no, most Americans do NOT just like America. We're good with most of the planet. Yes, we have a vocal minority of folks who want to start wars with half the planet, but most of us, not so much.

callmeslick wrote:not sure if what you're asking is answered by this, but no, most Americans do NOT just like America. We're good with most of the planet. Yes, we have a vocal minority of folks who want to start wars with half the planet, but most of us, not so much.

I never asked you for anything, you're a pig snout unwashed. But I agree with you in part.

Sorry Ferno, wasn’t really my intent to insult you, guess its better I go back to pretending you don’t exist, it did keep the peace for a long time.

Vander wrote:Heh, I suppose honesty in bigotry is a bit too much to ask.

Yea, he should have been given a lecture about how he was going to rot in hell and all that.

The guy was given a very polite “no” in my opinion that should be good enough.

That was directed at woodchips business bigotry tips.

Spidey wrote:Tc, If a repair shop is open to the public, like say…MIDAS then yes they have to take all comers, but the block I work on has 2 auto shops on it, and they both only service by way of recommendation, no walk-ins. (one only does Chinese customers)

I agree with you in principle, and would never discriminate against anyone due to age, sex, color…etc.

But I do pick and choose my customers, and the jobs I will do and won’t do.

The thing for me is…do they have a sign outside, if they do…well then that is an invitation, and you better serve me.

That's good. I'm glad you're modern and unbiased Spidey. But you do realize that in the pre-Civil Rights era, that very excuse was used to keep white businessmen from having to serve or do business with black people. This new conservative attempt is nothing but yet another way to give certain people or group their own special rights to discriminate against those they dislike, or even more revealing, a way to impose their religious beliefs on others not of their faith. The SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision is a good example of that. This nation is not a Christian theocracy. We are a nation of immigrants and differing religions from all over the world. We need to maintain a secular society for the sake of everyone's rights. Christians need to accept that or be marginalized.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/0 ... -anti-gay/

All the usual right wingers were on the talk shows this morning saying how they should have the religious freedom to not participate in something they think violates their religious freedom, like gay weddings. Bobby Jindal needs to keep his mouth shut. Not so long ago, he himself, being dark skinned, would have been the target of those very same Christians he so loves to cater to now. Plus, I'd like to know how baking a single cake is participating in a gay wedding? These business owners are not AT the actual wedding, they are not sanctioning ANY weddings by providing a product. They are only feeding a bunch of people some cake. They are only supplying a product that they normally supply to the general public at large, a product that is to be consumed by a bunch of wedding participants.

No I never said I’m unbiased, that gives me way too much credit, I just don’t believe in punishing someone for things they can’t control. I have said from the very beginning this kind of thing needs the proper balance of different people’s rights. And most of the public accommodation laws seem to strike that balance, not that some adjustment can’t be made here and there.

And slick…

Try empathizing with both sides once in your life, you might gain a new perspective, and realize compromise is the answer, and that declaring someone a bigot is not the way forward.

Religion is as natural as being gay.

You condemn a person that wants to avoid committing a sin (Vander’s selective argument aside) but sympathize with the one facing only a minor inconvenience, I just don’t see the balance there.

And I am only speaking of the example in the OP…not gay bashing and such…so don’t even go there.

Spidey wrote:Religion is as natural as being gay.

Only one of those is a choice, and is the result of ignorance.

Religion itself is not ignorance, but I will agree that some beliefs within it are.

Spidey wrote:Sorry Ferno, wasn’t really my intent to insult you, guess its better I go back to pretending you don’t exist, it did keep the peace for a long time.

aaaand it's not "really my intent" to call bull★■◆● like it is. oh wait, yes it is. you were gaining my respect up until that last comment, so congratulations.

Religion is as natural as being gay.

So you're saying a person has no choice in what they believe. okay there. I guess no one has a choice on who their friends are either. or what job they work, because in your world; it's all predetermined.

Terrible logic for the win.

Spidey wrote:No I never said I’m unbiased, that gives me way too much credit, I just don’t believe in punishing someone for things they can’t control. I have said from the very beginning this kind of thing needs the proper balance of different people’s rights. And most of the public accommodation laws seem to strike that balance, not that some adjustment can’t be made here and there.

You should have taken the credit. You're a smart guy.

But you did make an error. The religious affiliation of any person is their choice. Gender identity and homosexuality are immutable traits and science is beginning to back that up. But even if you choose to still believe they are not traits but life choices, given that religious affiliation is a choice and is still a protected class, those who differ from others with their sexuality should be given equal treatment under the law as a sign of fairness and human compassion.

In my opinion, public accommodation definitions need to be updated too. Who in the hell has a lunch counter anymore anyway?

I never said it wasn't a choice, I said it was natural.

Wasn’t it you who pointed out there is a part of the brain that is devoted to religion. (or something like that)

………….

The search for truth and something to believe in are as natural to humans as breathing.

The problem with religion is not religion itself, the problem is the search for truth and something to believe in has been usurped by those who say they already know the truth, and tell you what to believe.

Spidey wrote:I never said it wasn't a choice, I said it was natural.

Wasn’t it you who pointed out there is a part of the brain that is devoted to religion. (or something like that)

At least many scientists think there are parts of the brain that deal with spirituality, so I stand corrected. However, what religion one chooses to fit one's beliefs is definitely a choice. Even atheism is a religious choice.

http://www.livescience.com/3366-scienti ... brain.html

Spidey wrote:………….

The search for truth and something to believe in are as natural to humans as breathing.

The problem with religion is not religion itself, the problem is the search for truth and something to believe in has been usurped by those who say they already know the truth, and tell you what to believe.

Maybe there are no truths, but only perspectives and suppositions.

Spidey wrote:I never said it wasn't a choice, I said it was natural.

Wasn’t it you who pointed out there is a part of the brain that is devoted to religion. (or something like that)

No, I don't think so. It's not like me to make such an erroneous conclusion.

Also, it might be beneficial to yourself if you checked out the 'appeal to nature' logical fallacy; to steel yourself from making a bad leap of logic again.

Wasn't talking to you.

For the first part, maybe, Spidey. Second part, it's aimed directly at you.

I have to ask, why does the government have any say whatsoever in marriage if it is a religious ritual? It seems to me the people backing these "religious freedom" laws are the same people backing so called "defense of marriage" laws. Do they want the government mucking with religion or don't they?

Only when it suits their purpose.

Vander wrote:I have to ask, why does the government have any say whatsoever in marriage if it is a religious ritual? It seems to me the people backing these "religious freedom" laws are the same people backing so called "defense of marriage" laws. Do they want the government mucking with religion or don't they?

Good question.

I know that Christians in other countries (where Christianity isn't the norm) generally have a "civil" marriage and a separate "church" marriage.

Here's my difficulty (I think I've expressed this before here):

Should a public business be obligated to facilitate legal behavior to which they they are morally opposed? On one hand, I don't like descrimination, and fully support any law that bans descrimination based on someone's nature. On the other hand, I think religous freedom should allow people and businesses of refuse to support behavior to which they object. I draw the line at the difference between people chosen actions and their unchosen nature... specifically when it comes to homosexuality I think it's wrong to deny service to a person because they're gay but I'm fine with refusing to participate in an activity that's explicitly gay [say, refusing to make a wedding cake that's explicitly gay].

For any of you who would disagree with me: pick a legal behavior to which you [strongly] object, and ask yourself if you want to be obligated to play a role in enabling that behavior. Maybe to take it further: are public businesses allowed to set policies about type of business that they will refuse to contract?

[Septa, here in Philly, recently had an interestingly similar case: Some Jewish assiciation contracted them to run an political ad about Islam - Septa tried to refuse the work after seeing the content of the ad, but a court ruled that they had to run it. The story stated that Septa intended to introduce a policy refusing all political ads in response, so I got the impression that Septa's problem with this particular ad was that they were trying to ammend their "acceptance" policy after the fact... but that future political ads could be blocked based on an established policy.]

Vander wrote:I have to ask, why does the government have any say whatsoever in marriage if it is a religious ritual?

government gets involved the moment that marital status becomes the basis for tax breaks, visitation rights, etc, etc.

Snoopy, did you mean civil marriage and church wedding?

A wedding can be a “religious ritual” but a marriage is a legal status. Non religious people get married all of the time.

The government is involved in marriage because it is the legal sanctioning body, because we took legal authority away from the church many years ago.

The idea that marriage is a church and state issue is based on the false premise that marriage is exclusively a religious institution…which it is not, marriage is a legal status. You choose the wedding, but all marriages are the same.

As with all sanctioning bodies, they don’t make the rules, they only legitimize something, by having legal authority and enforcing the rules, which in this case are made by the society at large, so stop faulting the state for doing their job.

So as I have said before, if you removed the legal authority behind marriage, you would also be removing any legal status, and marriage would become meaningless in any legal sense.

callmeslick wrote:

Vander wrote:Heh, I suppose honesty in bigotry is a bit too much to ask.

yeah, damn shame that bigots don't put the brainpower into empathy and compassion that they do into excuse-making, huh?

Too bad those empathy/compassionate types don't do the same when their pet belief is stepped upon...such as a Military Chaplin being discharged for his views on homosexuality. It would seem the lack of empathy and compassion, even reverse bigotry is OK as long as you are a liberal.

woodchip wrote:Too bad those empathy/compassionate types don't do the same when their pet belief is stepped upon...such as a Military Chaplin being discharged for his views on homosexuality. It would seem the lack of empathy and compassion, even reverse bigotry is OK as long as you are a liberal.

I am a bigot against bigots. Reverse bigotry!

As far as I know, the military is not subject to the bill of rights. A sanctioned religious officer?

Vander wrote:

woodchip wrote:Too bad those empathy/compassionate types don't do the same when their pet belief is stepped upon...such as a Military Chaplin being discharged for his views on homosexuality. It would seem the lack of empathy and compassion, even reverse bigotry is OK as long as you are a liberal.

I am a bigot against bigots. Reverse bigotry!

As far as I know, the military is not subject to the bill of rights. A sanctioned religious officer?

First off Chaplin served for 15 years as a chaplin so yes he was sanctioned.

As to your being a bigot against bigots, no, you are a bigot against Christians who practice their faith.

aren't military chaplains, while ordained clergy, supposed to serve in a non-denominational function, past stuff like last rites and all?

woodchip wrote:As to your being a bigot against bigots, no, you are a bigot against Christians who practice their faith.

Tomayto, Tomahto. I don't get to cloak my bigotry with religious dogma. Maybe I'm just jealous.

callmeslick wrote:

Vander wrote:I have to ask, why does the government have any say whatsoever in marriage if it is a religious ritual?

government gets involved the moment that marital status becomes the basis for tax breaks, visitation rights, etc, etc.

But those conditions are the result of government involvement. They didn't just manifest themselves and so government had no choice but to step in after the fact.

It is the lazy nature of bureaucracy. Solve the immediate need and kick the can full of bad side effects down the road.

Social Security numbers: 'Don't let anyone have yours, keep it private'...but... 'do let everyone have it' to make their job easier...

Government shouldn't have a say. If they want to regulate adoption rights, etc. then they should create their own standards/criteria for doing so. Don't adopt the church as an authority only when it suits your work load.

no one is 'accepting the church viewpoint'. Folks get married outside of churches and have for years. We've had a system of judges marrying people forever, and I don't know why that started. As opposed to the things I cited earlier, it isn't clear why that tradition started, as it pre-dated any tax or other perks of government.

Will Robinson wrote:But those conditions are the result of government involvement. They didn't just manifest themselves and so government had no choice but to step in after the fact.

It is the lazy nature of bureaucracy. Solve the immediate need and kick the can full of bad side effects down the road.

Social Security numbers: 'Don't let anyone have yours, keep it private'...but... 'do let everyone have it' to make their job easier...

Government shouldn't have a say. If they want to regulate adoption rights, etc. then they should create their own standards/criteria for doing so. Don't adopt the church as an authority only when it suits your work load.

I generally agree with most of this, but I don't know if I would term this the "lazy nature of bureaucracy." It seems more the lazy nature of human thought, of which bureaucracy is simply a prime example. The inability to perceive wider or alternate perspective pollutes foresight. Hindsight is 20/20 because new perspective has been gained.

Vander wrote:

woodchip wrote:As to your being a bigot against bigots, no, you are a bigot against Christians who practice their faith.

Tomayto, Tomahto. I don't get to cloak my bigotry with religious dogma. Maybe I'm just jealous.

I'm sure you're also happy to hate on religious people for their hypocrisy, too.

snoopy wrote:I'm sure you're also happy to hate on religious people for their hypocrisy, too.

If by "hate on" you mean observing and perhaps forming and expressing a negative opinion, I think "happy" is a stretch, but I'll allow it.

I freely admit that I think people that believe in god are delusional, and that it's scary to me to think these delusional people have any authority over my life. I'm sure the feeling is mutual. If we're going to live in civil society together, we're going to have to compromise. One of those compromises is that we don't discriminate based on these beliefs. I don't get to discriminate against Christians. Christians don't get to discriminate against me. We get to think bad thoughts about each other in peace.

Vander, people with that shared 'delusion' not only affect your life, but completely dominate the governmental leadership.

callmeslick wrote:government gets involved the moment that marital status becomes the basis for tax breaks, visitation rights, etc, etc.

Which brings up a question in my mind. Why did the government decide marriage was a good basis for tax breaks, etc, like you stated?

honest answer, Ferno, is 'I don't know'.......