Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    07 Mar '18 12:282 edits
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    (1) I think that the whole issue has a lot to do with the free exercise and practice of one's religion, and businesses doing what they want with their own property and resources. At least, it totally can be treated that way.

    (2) Vivify:
    "There is anti-Islamic sentiment in Georgia" (oh dear)

    >Georgia [b]Lawmakers
    [this law]
    >George Law en ...[text shortened]... be some kind of sinister coordination between the two...

    Geez, man, that's unrelated.
    This happened just over a year ago in Georgia:

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/muslim-backlash-georgia-lawmaker-change-no-mask-law/

    State Rep. Jason Spencer came under fire from the American Civil Liberties Union and Muslim advocacy groups who called his proposal a veiled attempt to ban Muslim women from wearing scarves and other religious headgear that covers their faces in public....

    “It is a naked and despicable attempt to exploit the current wave of anti-Muslim sentiment by targeting Muslim women,” Heather Weaver, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington, said Thursday.

    Spencer said the bill he introduced for next year’s session of the Georgia Legislature would simply be “adding clarity” to a law passed decades ago to safeguard against what he called “threats from masked terrorists.”


    Get the point? There's a far-right conservative culture that not only put such evangelicals in power,and allows them to be blatantly stereotypical Republicans, which includes being pro-Christian and anti-Muslim.

    Why else could Georgian lawmakers openly tweet that they were punishing Delta for an "attack on conservatives" when they backed out of support the NRA?

    If you believe this law has anything to do with religious freedom of Muslims, you've been in a coma since 2001.
  2. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    07 Mar '18 12:411 edit
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    (1) I think that the whole issue has a lot to do with the free exercise and practice of one's religion, and businesses doing what they want with their own property and resources. At least, it totally can be treated that way.

    (2) Vivify:
    "There is anti-Islamic sentiment in Georgia" (oh dear)

    >Georgia [b]Lawmakers
    [this law]
    >George Law en ...[text shortened]... be some kind of sinister coordination between the two...

    Geez, man, that's unrelated.
    Also from just over a year ago:

    https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/23/us/georgia-town-mosque-fight/index.html

    Georgia county fights plans for mosque

    This article also includes a video of a Georgian protester saying about Muslims, "They should live like us."

    If you still think this law is anything other promoting far-right evangelical extremism, you're not being honest.
  3. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    81736
    07 Mar '18 13:06
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    >Ignorant
    >Bigot
    Yeah, none of that is an argument. Keep flapping your wings and clucking like a mother hen, though, and you will keep getting the +1s from your chicks.

    It is also interesting to point out that segregation is something that was abolished but still exists de facto in many places.

    ... And that some of these featured rainbow ...[text shortened]... ecause I am sympathetic and loving to people but also remember that reality has its limitations.
    the govt shouldn't be in the business of forcing sexual perverts on its citizens.
  4. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    81736
    07 Mar '18 13:07
    Originally posted by @suzianne
    So, you mean the sort of business that treats gay people like human beings?

    That sort of business?
    gays? do you mean sexual perverts?
  5. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57022
    07 Mar '18 16:20
    Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
    gays? do you mean sexual perverts?
    Oh... deary me...
    Poor mottyballs has never had a blow job...

    He surely would frown upon the perversion of spilling his seed down his sister’s tank-top.
  6. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20313
    07 Mar '18 23:19
    Originally posted by @shavixmir
    No it is not.
    Because then independent organizations would have the ability to block Christians from adopting according to their own "religious' beliefs, wouldn't it?

    So, it's anti-gay.
    Wait, what?

    Yes, any organization could choose to operate within the confines of their religious ideas, and presumably a Muslim or Jewish adoption agency could likewise choose to not adopt children to Christians.

    What are you talking about?

    Or wait, is this some kind of troll, where you are saying that Christians are gay, and blocking adoption to Christians based on their Christianity is anti-gay?

    LOL. OK. Idk.
  7. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20313
    07 Mar '18 23:22
    Originally posted by @vivify
    This happened just over a year ago in Georgia:

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/muslim-backlash-georgia-lawmaker-change-no-mask-law/

    [quote]State Rep. Jason Spencer came under fire from the American Civil Liberties Union and Muslim advocacy groups who called his proposal a veiled attempt to ban Muslim women from wearing scarves and other religious headgear ...[text shortened]... this law has anything to do with religious freedom of Muslims, you've been in a coma since 2001.
    But that doesn't even matter when we are being adults discussing Constitutionality.

    Here's me:

    >Let's talk about a specific law; let's put it into its specific context. Let's talk about why it's right or wrong.

    Here's you:

    >TOPIC: a law which allows charities and businesses to run themselves based on their ideals which would have circumstances where gays woul dbe denied certain services.
    >>OMG they hate Muslims.
    >>>OMG they hate gays.
    >>>>Look at this, they don't want scarves for Muslims
    >>>>>They don't want a Mosque for Muslims.
    >>>>>> DON'T YOU SEE? THEY HATE MUSLIMS. AND THEY HATE GAYS. OIWROUJOFWJEEFW!!!!!

    Chillax, bro.

    I am not interested in curbing the rights of Muslims in America. That isn't even the topic.

    It's OK if these people are right about one thing because we can always vote against them when they are wrong.

    Do you follow?
  8. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    08 Mar '18 00:491 edit
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    But that doesn't even matter when we are being adults discussing Constitutionality.

    Here's me:

    >Let's talk about a specific law; let's put it into its specific context. Let's talk about why it's right or wrong.

    Here's you:

    >TOPIC: a law which allows charities and businesses to run themselves based on their ideals which would have circumsta ...[text shortened]... ut one thing[/i] because we can always vote against them when they are wrong.

    Do you follow?
    The motivation for a law is absolutely necessary when discussing it.

    For example, literacy tests for voters were banned because they were used to keep blacks from voting. Blacks were at a major disadvantage when that ban was based, because schools were still segregated, resulting in blacks receiving a worse education, if they received one at all.

    Supporters of the law could try to dance around by saying "oh, we just want more educated voters", and other claims that sound nice. But no matter how rational you tried to make such a law, it didn't change that the purpose was insidious, and only harmed blacks.

    Likewise, you can try to make a law aimed at legalizing discrimination against gays sound "rational", but it won't lessen the intended purpose of the law, which is immoral and unconstitutional.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    08 Mar '18 02:30
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    Wait, what?

    Yes, any organization could choose to operate within the confines of their religious ideas, and presumably a Muslim or Jewish adoption agency could likewise choose to not adopt children to Christians.

    What are you talking about?

    Or wait, is this some kind of troll, where you are saying that Christians are gay, and blocking adoption to Christians based on their Christianity is anti-gay?

    LOL. OK. Idk.
    If Christians own a department store, should they be able to ban gays from it?

    Some of the writings in the collection called "the Bible" make mandatory not merely the non-service of gays at adoption agencies and bakeries, but them being put to death ( see Leviticus 20 though a lot of others are included as well) . Are secular laws against killing gays a violation of a Christian's right to practice his religion?
  10. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20313
    08 Mar '18 02:48
    Originally posted by @vivify
    The motivation for a law is absolutely necessary when discussing it.

    For example, literacy tests for voters were banned because they were used to keep blacks from voting. Blacks were at a major disadvantage when that ban was based, because schools were still segregated, resulting in blacks receiving a worse education, if they received one at all.

    ...[text shortened]... al", but it won't lessen the intended purpose of the law, which is immoral and unconstitutional.
    Yeah, OK, I understand how certain laws might actually be designed to achieve a very specific goal and disguised as a positive measure but, in practice, are only discriminatory.

    However, there is absolutely nothing that says that there cannot be secular adoption services or even gay run, gay oriented adoption services. Legally, LGBTQ folks can adopt (thus the thread title is patently wrong), and this involves literally empowering a minority opinion to continue practicing their business in line with their minority opinion.

    If you can demonstrate how this law would directly destroy the adoption rights of gays in Georgia, please show me.
  11. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20313
    08 Mar '18 02:52
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    If Christians own a department store, should they be able to ban gays from it?

    Some of the writings in the collection called "the Bible" make mandatory not merely the non-service of gays at adoption agencies and bakeries, but them being put to death ( see Leviticus 20 though a lot of others are included as well) . Are secular laws against killing gays a violation of a Christian's right to practice his religion?
    I am glad you cut right to the heart of the issue.

    I'm not a Libertarian.But I generally support property rights.

    If someone wants to be so silly as to open up a store and put a "no gays or blacks" sign, I am not sure what I would say. Such a position is patently ridiculous in the current year. We literally have mainstream advertisers catering to liberal causes. I can't really imagine the scenario. But I understand this is an intellectual exercise.

    Blatantly hostile policies in the public sphere are a nuisance and violate the premises of polite society, and so the notion of someone putting a "no gays" or "no blacks" sign up is pretty disgusting and I can see why the government and local authorities should bar them from doing this.

    However, a Mosque has a right to not let women into the men's prayer room, or men into the women's prayer room.

    A Muslim bakery has a right to not bake a wedding cake for gays.

    A Muslim adoption agency has a right to only provide services for Muslims. Indeed, it might even be part of their contract with the women who are giving up their children for adoption. Do you see what i mean?
  12. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20313
    08 Mar '18 02:56
    The part II to this is a lot more fun...

    Generally speaking, the laws of the Hebrews need to be treated quite distinctly from the New Testament. Prior to the establishment of the Hebrews as a nation, they abided by the Noahidic covenant, and it is generally thought that the remannts of the Noahidic covenant are all that the Gentiles were expected to conform to.

    Christ overturned the death penalty for adultery, and the spirit of the Christian ministry is one that is allowing, forgiving, and quite different than the nature of the laws in Leviticus, so a secular society and secular laws are not at all contrary. Christianity existed as a minority group and is not fundamentally political. Christ's willingness to work with both jewish rebels and Roman tax collectors (not just I think it was James, but also Zaccheas) was very controversial.

    Moreover, as it says in John 18:36

    Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.


    But you are right that rote secularism doesn't make that much sense.

    I tend to be very sympathetic with Vladimir Moss's ideas about autocracy and sinfonia, and I think supporting a classical libearl scheme that is reductionist and humanist will always result in an anti-Christian, progressive society.

    As Fr. Seraphim Rose implied... liberalism, even in the classical liberal sense, is the breeding ground for nihilism.
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    08 Mar '18 03:15
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    I am glad you cut right to the heart of the issue.

    I'm not a Libertarian.But I generally support property rights.

    If someone wants to be so silly as to open up a store and put a "no gays or blacks" sign, I am not sure what I would say. Such a position is patently ridiculous in the current year. We literally have mainstream advertisers catering to ...[text shortened]... contract with the women who are giving up their children for adoption. Do you see what i mean?
    A mosque or a church is a religious institution.

    An adoption agency which charges a fee or a bakery is a public commercial agency part of the economic system created by society for the benefit of all of society's members. Thus, it is subject to regulation by the State and constrained not to invidiously discriminate against society's members.

    See what I mean? What is done by people practicing their religion in private or at a religious institution is their business.

    What is done in the public sphere is everybody's business (hence "public" from the Latin "publicus" i.e. of the (adult) people).
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    08 Mar '18 03:20
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    The part II to this is a lot more fun...

    Generally speaking, the laws of the Hebrews need to be treated quite distinctly from the New Testament. Prior to the establishment of the Hebrews as a nation, they abided by the Noahidic covenant, and it is generally thought that the remannts of the Noahidic covenant are all that the Gentiles were expected to ...[text shortened]... implied... liberalism, even in the classical liberal sense, is the breeding ground for nihilism.
    I'm not primarily interested in discussing theology; I'd waste my time in Spirituality (as I used to do) if I was.

    My point was that the mere existence of a religious belief i.e. homosexuality is "wrong" does not entitle one to ignore secular laws in the public domain.
  15. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20313
    08 Mar '18 03:42
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    A mosque or a church is a religious institution.

    An adoption agency which charges a fee or a bakery is a public commercial agency part of the economic system created by society for the benefit of all of society's members. Thus, it is subject to regulation by the State and constrained not to invidiously discriminate against society's members.

    See w ...[text shortened]... e is everybody's business (hence "public" from the Latin "publicus" i.e. of the (adult) people).
    There's a lot of directions to go with this, and a lot of absurdities that can be deduced from the <current status quo> and your proposed situation.

    For instance, does every single publicly operating business also need a plan to cater white supremacist events if they normally cater any general event?

    Does a gay bar need to accept Muslim or Christian patrons who have come only to drink coffee and have verbal exchanges with gay patrons?

    Moreover... Can a doctor have a private practice?

    Can a baker have a private practice?

    E.g., can I list myself as a Muslim doctor... and as a Muslim woman, I believe it is haram for me to touch anyone but my makran, and so I will not touch any men and thus not have any male clients?

    The easy solution to this is to say that someone cannot be compelled to violate their conscience or the purposes of their stores, but at the same time have laws on the books which dictate that anyone can go into a publicly zoned building and that any of these buildings shouldn'[t discriminate on basic services, e.g., selling a regular cake or some flowers.
Back to Top