Religious Belief Choices Vs. The Public's Desire

Sex Trafficking of children? Twhitehead lulls us all to realize things could never be better:

South Africa is a source, transit, and destination country for trafficked men, women, and children. South African girls are trafficked within their country for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation and domestic servitude, while boys are trafficked internally for use in street vending, food service, and agriculture. Anecdotal evidence suggests that South African children are forced to provide unpaid labor for landowners in return for their family occupying land or accommodation, or maintaining labor tenancy rights. Child sex tourism is prevalent in a number of South Africa’s cities. Women and girls from other African countries are trafficked to South Africa for commercial sexual exploitation, domestic servitude, and other jobs in the service sector; occasionally, these women are trafficked onward to Europe for sexual exploitation. Thai, Chinese, and European women are trafficked to South Africa for debt-bonded commercial sexual exploitation. Young men and boys from Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Malawi are trafficked to South Africa for farm work, often laboring for months in South Africa without pay before "employers" have them arrested and deported as illegal immigrants. Organized criminal groups—including Nigerian, Chinese, and Eastern European syndicates, local gangs and individual policemen facilitate trafficking into and within South Africa, particularly for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation.

The Government of South Africa does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking; making no significant efforts to do so. South Africa is placed on Tier 2 list for a fourth consecutive year for its failure to show increasing efforts to address trafficking over the last year. The government provided inadequate data on trafficking crimes investigated or prosecuted or on resulting convictions or sentences. In addition, it did not provide information on its efforts to protect victims of trafficking and continued to deport and/or prosecute suspected foreign victims without providing appropriate protective services.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_South_Africa


Its never been safer, the worst is surely over, its getting better and better all the time - twhitehead, who checks all the right news sources, tells us.

Originally posted by vistesd
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.

At no time have I been aware of any Christian business saying they will
not serve someone due to them being gay or anything else, what I have
seen is them saying don't want to be a part of religious ceremony that goes
against their faith as in a marriage that are for same sex people. So unless
you are suggesting personal discrimination is taking place when that
happens spell out why! The debate is that some want to force everyone
from accepting everything, why is that important?

The flower shops, pizza joints, cake shops all have been serving everyone
even knowing they are serving gays, because serving gays isn't a big deal.

Greetings vistesd nice seeing you here!

Originally posted by KellyJay
At no time have I been aware of any Christian business saying they will
not serve someone due to them being gay or anything else, what I have
seen is them saying don't want to be a part of religious ceremony that goes
against their faith as in a marriage that are for same sex people. So unless
you are suggesting personal discrimination is taking place w ...[text shortened]... serving gays, because serving gays isn't a big deal.

Greetings vistesd nice seeing you here!

Well, the OP said that that was just one example—presumably of the broader point in the first paragraph, to wit: “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?”

So I think the issue is more about serving cakes. Or even about “taking part” in a religious ceremony, which would not be the case in a civil marriage. The question, again, is why should religious belief be a privileged “escape clause” for discrimination (it clearly is discrimination)?

Again, to repeat the way I put it to Joe:

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” [insert: or otherwise burdened] because of their religious beliefs than for other beliefs.

I have no more time till at least Sunday—so this is food for thought till then, anyway.

Be well, Kelly.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, the OP said that that was just one example—presumably of the broader point in the first paragraph, to wit: “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?”

...[text shortened]... more time till at least Sunday—so this is food for thought till then, anyway.

Be well, Kelly.

So you feel personal conviction is meaningless? I believe your thoughts on
right and wrong are just as important as your skin color, to hate you for
either would be just as wrong. You are made up of all your parts, including
your views make you who are. So you I feel should be served no matter
what your thoughts are on any topic, no matter what you look like, where
you are from, and so on, but that stops with you!

Forcing anyone to take part of things you want to do now is no longer you,
but the event you are driving, and events we do we don't all agree with! I
can accept all women and men, but does that mean now I have to shell out
money to abort babies that they think are not human? For me that is a life
that is ending, there is a difference, one is who they are, the other is what
they are doing!

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you feel personal conviction is meaningless? I believe your thoughts on
right and wrong are just as important as your skin color, to hate you for
either would be just as wrong. You are made up of all your parts, including
your views make you who are. So you I feel should be served no matter
what your thoughts are on any topic, no matter what you look ...[text shortened]...
that is ending, there is a difference, one is who they are, the other is what
they are doing!

Of course I don’t think that personal convictions are “meaningless”, and I never said that. Nor is that the topic of the thread. The question is why religious convictions ought to be privileged by society, such that a religious person should be less burdened or inconvenienced by those convictions in business decisions or the public marketplace than the non-religious person (who also has personal convictions)?

Originally posted by vistesd
Of course I don’t think that personal convictions are “meaningless”, and I never said that. Nor is that the topic of the thread. The question is why religious convictions ought to be privileged by society, such that a religious person should be less burdened or inconvenienced by those convictions in business decisions or the public marketplace than the non-religious person (who also has personal convictions)?

You think one's sexual desires should trump another's religious beliefs?
MY argument didn't even address that, it settled on what we are and how
we should be viewed. My point is that we should all be viewed and treated
the same way, that said not everything we want or do should be forced
upon everyone else.

So in public schools, prayers are limited for those that want to pray least
another be offended. Yet another's sexual choices/desires/whatever can
be forced upon someone else in public?

You either fix it so everyone cannot be offended or everyone can be,, if you
just pick and choose who you like when, than who the hell are you to tell
another that?

Originally posted by KellyJay
So in public schools, prayers are limited for those that want to pray least
another be offended. Yet another's sexual choices/desires/whatever can
be forced upon someone else in public?

This is not the case, or even anything remotely resembling the case.

example in italics:
Suppose that you are a cake maker, and that one of products you have on
offer is a range of wedding cakes.

Then suppose that I am going to get married to my partner in a secular service
which you don't approve of. [because you, in this example, don't believe that
secular marriages are legitimate]

Now if the law requires you to provide me with a wedding cake just like you would
provide a couple for a religious ceremony [that you approve of] then you have been
'inconvenienced' in as much as you have had to provide your services you something
you don't approve of.

If on the other hand the law allows you to elect NOT to provide me with the product
or service and you choose to discriminate against me and not provide me with a cake
then I have been inconvenienced by you.
In which case YOUR religious beliefs have interfered with MY ability to live my life as I
choose [within the law].
Your religious beliefs are very common in your area and wedding cake makers are rare and
so it turns out that nowhere makes wedding cakes for secular marriages.

So in this example I am extremely inconvenienced by YOUR religious beliefs, whereas you
are very mildly inconvenienced by having to provide me with a wedding cake just like anyone else.
Couple this with the fact that your religious beliefs could conceivably cause you to discriminate
against, gays, ethnic minorities, poor people, rich people, men, women, other religions, atheists,
ect ect ect... And we have a real problem.

The simplest, and best solution is to say that nobody is allowed to discriminate against other
people at their work places.
So that if you provide a product or service you must provide it to anyone and everyone.**
That way you don't get discriminated against by Muslims/Catholics/atheists/ect and you don't
discriminate against them.
This allows you to live in a society where you can be sure that when a bus comes along the
driver wont tell you you can't get on because they're an atheist and wont allow religious
people on their bus... Or a Muslim, and won't allow Christians on their bus.... ect ect.


However at no point in this are other peoples sex choices forced upon you...
Other than the fact that they are not required to HIDE the fact that they happen to be
homosexual [or whatever], unlike heterosexual couples who have pretty much always [and
certainly in modern times] been allowed to show affection for each other in public, and
announce in public the fact that they are affectionate and have sex.
But again, this is making things more equal. this is giving minorities the same rights and
privileges that the majority have had for centuries.


What you are asking for is the law to allow you to discriminate against these people and
massively inconvenience them based on your religious values.
You are asking to be allowed to IMPOSE your religious values on everyone else.
So back to vistesd's question...

"why [do you think] religious convictions ought to be privileged by society, such that a religious
person should be less burdened or inconvenienced by those convictions in business decisions or
the public marketplace than the non-religious person (who also has personal convictions)?"




**Within the bounds of the law, So you can discriminate against under 21's if you sell alcohol
for example.

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is not the case, or even anything remotely resembling the case.

example in italics:
[i]Suppose that you are a cake maker, and that one of products you have on
offer is a range of wedding cakes.

Then suppose that I am going to get married to my partner in a secular service
which you don't approve of. [because you, in this example, don't be ...[text shortened]... bounds of the law, So you can discriminate against under 21's if you sell alcohol
for example.

No one is denied a cake due to who they are or what they are, the rejection
of taking part of a marriage that goes against one's belief is what at stake.

So if anyone comes in and orders a cake they can have one, but to ask
another to be a part of something they believe is sinful is a step beyond
that. When my wife and I got married we had to go to two different
pastors, due to the first one wouldn't do it, due to I was married before. I
was disappointed, but that was a far as it went. I'd never force another to
do something against their will if I could help it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No one is denied a cake due to who they are or what they are, the rejection
of taking part of a marriage that goes against one's belief is what at stake.

So if anyone comes in and orders a cake they can have one, but to ask
another to be a part of something they believe is sinful is a step beyond
that. When my wife and I got married we had to go to t ...[text shortened]... far as it went. I'd never force another to
do something against their will if I could help it.

If someone believes a new tax brought in by a democratically elected government is wrong,( even if they told the electorate they would bring this tax in), should you pay it?

Originally posted by OdBod
If someone believes a new tax brought in by a democratically elected government is wrong,( even if they told the electorate they would bring this tax in), should you pay it?

So does anyone have a choice about paying taxes? As I said we either all
should be forced to do things we dislike or we should all be protected from
doing things we dislike. When someone picks and chooses I'll protect you
over them, than there is an issue.

Originally posted by OdBod
If someone believes a new tax brought in by a democratically elected government is wrong,( even if they told the electorate they would bring this tax in), should you pay it?

That probably depends on other details of the situation. 😏

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
As for Muslims, I am not sure what the Quran tells about sex between 2 people of the same gender who are not married.

The quran is just as homophobic as the bible. Same god, same homophobia, I guess. He just can't seem to get past that*. Rape and torture, sure have at it, but if you have consentual sex with someone of the same gender, holy smokes is he coming down on you hard. Personally, I think god (if he exists) could use an anger management therapy session or two. It can't be good for him, all that anger.

* Allthough, in some cases, his believers manage to get past it. I guess they're better than their god?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality#Abrahamic_religions

Originally posted by sonship
Its never been safer, the worst is surely over, its getting better and better all the time - twhitehead, who checks all the right news sources, tells us.

And twhitehead is correct. Do you dispute what I claimed, or are you attempting to imply I am wrong without actually saying so as you know perfectly well that if you outright say so, you will be embarrassed in short order?

Originally posted by KellyJay
No one is denied a cake due to who they are or what they are, the rejection
of taking part of a marriage that goes against one's belief is what at stake.

Wrong.

There was a case in the news recently [last 6 months?] where a flower shop
owner who regularly provided flowers for weddings refused to provide flowers
for a gay wedding.

THAT is what is not permissible, and that is what the laws are designed to prevent.

Your claims to the contrary are not factual.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Wrong.

There was a case in the news recently [last 6 months?] where a flower shop
owner who regularly provided flowers for weddings refused to provide flowers
for a gay wedding.

THAT is what is not permissible, and that is what the laws are designed to prevent.

Your claims to the contrary are not factual.

The flower shop sold them flowers before, for the wedding was the issue.

From the Huffingpost:

For nearly a decade, Robert Ingersoll and his partner, Curt Freed, had bought bouquets from local business Arlene's Flower Shop, owned by Barronelle Stutzman, reports the Tri-City Herald. So it was Stutzman the men sought out when they recently decided to get married. (Same-sex weddings became legal in Washington State in December 2012.)