02 Apr 15
Why shouldn't people be able to make personal religious belief choices based on their supporting document from which they get their beliefs about right and wrong against Whom they think is God when the choice may inconvenience someone else?
This is certainly not the only example, but for one example, if Muslims and Christians believe that making a cake for or providing flowers for a coupling of people by a so-called marriage when the 2 people want to have sex with each other when the genders are the same is against God, why should they be mandated by anyone to provide the cake or flowers?
For Christians, it isn't about not liking someone or not loving someone, but based on the Holy Bible it is about the act of sex being performed by 2 people of the same sex and who are not married in the sight of Whom they believe is God.
As for Muslims, I am not sure what the Quran tells about sex between 2 people of the same gender who are not married.
02 Apr 15
1 edit
If you don't want to have sex with some one of the same gender, no one is forcing you to. If a couple wants to buy a cake from you, their sex life is none of your busy body business! Remember, slave traders and witch burners felt sanctified by their religious beliefs just like you do now! My opinion of your position is low!
03 Apr 15
Originally posted by vistesdWhy should one's religious beliefs be inconvenienced in a public service business? If a business owner decides not to sell their service or product to someone based on their religious beliefs, then that customer can find another vendor.
If your religious beliefs inconvenience you in a public service business—choose another occupation.
03 Apr 15
Originally posted by josephwIf not being able to discriminate based on someone’s sexuality (or race, or religion, or national origin, etc.) interferes with your religious beliefs, then you can choose another business. I don’t see why religious belief should shield you from being the one inconvenienced.
Why should one's religious beliefs be inconvenienced in a public service business? If a business owner decides not to sell their service or product to someone based on their religious beliefs, then that customer can find another vendor.
BTW, Hope you’re well, Joe. You, too, KellyJay.
03 Apr 15
Originally posted by vistesdWhy should the business owner be forced to provide a service or product to anyone for any reason? It's his business who he sells to, not the customer's, the owner's religious beliefs notwithstanding.
If not being able to discriminate based on someone’s sexuality (or race, or religion, or national origin, etc.) interferes with your religious beliefs, then you can choose another business. I don’t see why religious belief should shield you from being the one inconvenienced.
BTW, Hope you’re well, Joe. You, too, KellyJay.
Originally posted by josephwBecause allowance of that has led—and I am one who thinks will lead—to wholesale repression of large groups because of broadly distributed prejudices. And that allowing such repression based on sexuality is no more defensible than allowing it based on race or ethnicity (let’s say, an employer refusing to provide health insurance to employees in mixed-race marriages, while providing it to those in same-race marriages). In reality, it is not just about the choices of this or that lone individual, but the consequences of those choices for the society as a whole—and treating certain people as second-class citizens based for, otherwise, socially irrelevant reasons.
Why should the business owner be forced to provide a service or product to anyone for any reason? It's his business who he sells to, not the customer's, the owner's religious beliefs notwithstanding.
But all that is really irrelevant to this thread. This thread is not about caveat emptor versus caveat venditor under some libertarian notion of markets. (If it is, then it belongs in Debates.) Nor is it really about individual choice versus social needs. (Again, that would belong in Debates.) Nor is it about discrimination by actual religious organizations (e.g., a church). It is about carving out an allowance for personal religious beliefs, with the idea that it would be somehow worse for a person to be “inconvenienced” because of their religious beliefs than for other beliefs.
So—why do you think that your religious beliefs make it worse that you should be inconvenienced, than that somebody else should be inconvenienced? And why do you think that your convenience should be more protected than someone else’s, because of your religion?
03 Apr 15
Originally posted by josephwI believe that it is because of laws made that may cover that. All businesses are required to obey public laws. That is why we have courts to decide if any law has been violated.
Why should the business owner be forced to provide a service or product to anyone for any reason? It's his business who he sells to, not the customer's, the owner's religious beliefs notwithstanding.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by 667joe
If you don't want to have sex with some one of the same gender, no one is forcing you to. If a couple wants to buy a cake from you, their sex life is none of your busy body business! Remember, slave traders and witch burners felt sanctified by their religious beliefs just like you do now! My opinion of your position is low!
Joe I think we have to wake up these days and realize that many children ARE in fact being made to have sex in whatever manner the person who "bought" their slave "services" chooses.
Your rose colored glasses are obsolete. The SEX TRAFFIC of kidnapping and slavery is a billion dollar business. Extraordinarily evil and there to satisfy the whims of whoever has money to pay.
You are growing up into a world in which there will be a sizable number of scared individuals who will say - "But I WAS forced to _______!"
You weren't around to tell them while they were chained to a bed that "no one is forcing you to."
I'm afraid the "No one is forcing you" card is not as strong as it used to be.
Originally posted by sonshipYou clearly don't know any history or you watch the wrong news channels. Either way, you are outright wrong. Fewer people per capita are being forced to have sex than any time in recorded history.
I'm afraid the "No one is forcing you" card is not as strong as it used to be.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo problem huh?
You clearly don't know any history or you watch the wrong news channels. Either way, you are outright wrong. Fewer people per capita are being forced to have sex than any time in recorded history.
Or no need for alarm - things have never been better for safety from sex trafficking and kidnapping for it?
"Fewer people per capita are being forced to have sex than any time in recorded history."
Why not turn some of your skepticism on your own skepticism?
The global information age may be reporting more than before that was going unreported. More is coming to light. That MAY be the case and it would be no call to be lulled into complacency.
We have climate change deniers and we have sex trafficking epidemic deniers. The latter are not more cool.