Why do so many conservative Christians feel they have to dictate how the rest of us live?

[busymama7]

Not the way it works in America. You might want to read upthread. We have laws that forbid discrimination against protected classes of people. You CANNOT discriminate based on race, for example. You do not get to open a business in America and then say I will not serve XYZ race because I don't like them. Luckily we have come far enough that most people understand this is not allowed.

 

Now, in America we are also starting to recognize that sexual orientation is another protected class. You do not get to open a business in American and then say I will not serve gay people because it goes against my religion.

 

If you want to opt out of the American way of doing things...start a commune. Live separately like the Amish or other groups. Don't participate in civil society. But if you want a business, a business license, and everything else that goes along with it you have to play by the rules.

No I get that. I do. But some of you are saying with reference to the baker that it shouldnt matter it's just the cake. Ok I can see that. But forcing someone to actually perform the ceremony is different. Just wondering what your argument for that being ok beyond it's the law.

[Mrs Mungo]

The thing is, there have been so many valid arguments about why the baker should have made the cake, but this dog wedding thing is turning it into a complete mockery.

If you had actually read any of the articles posted on this subject, then you would know that it was one of the items brought up in the legal battle. It is one of the reasons that he lost the case. Claiming that it is irrelevant or a stretch or making a mockery of the case is therefore pretty strange.

[Cammie]

No I get that. I do. But some of you are saying with reference to the baker that it shouldnt matter it's just the cake. Ok I can see that. But forcing someone to actually perform the ceremony is different. Just wondering what your argument for that being ok beyond it's the law.

 

It is NOT the law.

 

No one has forced anyone to ever perform a wedding ceremony in a church that went against their religion.  That was also addressed upthread.  A specific example was requested and nothing was provided.  This seems like a big scare tactic that is being used to garner support.

 

As I said when it first came up, forcing a church to perform a wedding that went against the belief's of that church would be an ABSOLUTE violation of church and state and I would stand with the church in defending their right to oppose such a law.

 

No one is arguing that churches must be forced to change their beliefs.  Believe what EVER you want to believe.  The question comes about activities performed by businesses, in the public sphere.

[busymama7]

So businesses should have the right to refuse to serve African-Americans, or Mexicans, or Asians, or Muslims, or Hindus, or atheists, or women, or fat people, or anyone else they just don't like? You think we should turn back the clock and undo all of the progress in civil rights that people marched and fought and died for in the last 50 years?

I wouldn't want that no of course not. But I do see this as different. I can see that others of your don't. Not sure how to wrap my brain around it all. If I owned a business say a bakery or restaurant I would have no issue serving food and being kind and generous to all my customers. But I do feel like in this issue I should be granted freedom to not participate in the wedding. Really anyone should be able to refuse to MARRY someone if they don't want to. It's not at all on the same level as handing them a plate of food.

[Corraleno]

No, but if the business owner thinks marriage so sacred he can't sell his product to persons who don't fit his faith's definition, how can he sell it to someone who wanted to make it silly by suggesting dogs could be married.

 

Because the "dog wedding" probably involved dogs of opposite genders, so it was OK! I wonder what his reaction would have been if the engaged canines had been named Fido and Mr. Pibbles?  ;)

[Mrs Mungo]

Alright serious question here. For those who think the baker should be forced to make the cake for the gay couple, do you feel the same way about the issue in Idaho with the wedding chapel? Your argument is that just providing a cake isn't sanctioning it in any way and should therefore not be a problem for the baker just doesn't hold water when it is turned to someone actually performing the ceremony. Even if they are running a business of performing weddings. It is definetly infringing on their religious beliefs to force them to marry gay couples or close their business.

Exceptions are made for religious groups. An open to the public wedding chapel is a business, not a religious group. If they don't want to perform weddings that fall outside of their faith, then they should reorganize as a church, become a private club with membership requirements or take some other course of action. If they want the tax benefits of calling it a business, then they take on the legal requirements of a business.

[busymama7]

It is NOT the law.

 

No one has forced anyone to ever perform a wedding ceremony in a church that went against their religion. That was also addressed upthread. A specific example was requested and nothing was provided. This seems like a big scare tactic that is being used to garner support.

 

As I said when it first came up, forcing a church to perform a wedding that went against the belief's of that church would be an ABSOLUTE violation of church and state and I would stand with the church in defending their right to oppose such a law.

 

No one is arguing that churches must be forced to change their beliefs. Believe what EVER you want to believe. The question comes about activities performed by businesses, in the public sphere.

And this is where I just can't agree. Business owners should be allowed to practice their religion and not be forced out of business. Really and truly that is not right. And guess what? If someone had a wedding chapel and refused to marry a hetero couple I would feel the same way. Their business. Their decisions. But I know this is not reality in America. I just want someone to explain how they think it's right. I heard and understood how providing the cake wouldn't say they agreed with it. But the actual person performing the wedding is different and just saying it's against the law isn't what I'm looking for.

 

I should have never even entered this conversation but I am being sincere and not trying to be hateful or mean or anything.

[Cammie]

Churches are not businesses.

 

Churches get very specific tax breaks because they are churches and not businesses.

 

Pastors get very specific tax treatment because they are pastors and not employed in a business.

 

There are very different rules for churches and for businesses.

 

Religious organizations need to simply organize as a religious organization and they will not be subject to the same rules as publicly operated businesses. 

 

America has recognized the right of churches to operate freely within that private sphere.

 

The tension comes in when people want the rights afforded to CHURCHES to apply when they are operating a business in the public sphere with all the attended benefits of doing so.

[Corraleno]

I wouldn't want that no of course not. But I do see this as different. I can see that others of your don't. Not sure how to wrap my brain around it all. If I owned a business say a bakery or restaurant I would have no issue serving food and being kind and generous to all my customers. But I do feel like in this issue I should be granted freedom to not participate in the wedding. Really anyone should be able to refuse to MARRY someone if they don't want to. It's not at all on the same level as handing them a plate of food.

 

If someone does not want to provide wedding services to an entire class of people who have the legal right to marry in that state, then perhaps they should not be in the wedding business. They have the option to become a legitimate church, and only marry those whose religious beliefs accord with theirs, or they could hire someone who does not object to gay marriage to perform those ceremonies. Otherwise they should find another business where their religious beliefs do not mandate that they illegally discriminate against a protected class of people.

[Cammie]

And this is where I just can't agree. Business owners should be allowed to practice their religion and not be forced out of business. Really and truly that is not right. And guess what? If someone had a wedding chapel and refused to marry a hetero couple I would feel the same way. Their business. Their decisions. But I know this is not reality in America. I just want someone to explain how they think it's right. I heard and understood how providing the cake wouldn't say they agreed with it. But the actual person performing the wedding is different and just saying it's against the law isn't what I'm looking for.

 

I should have never even entered this conversation but I am being sincere and not trying to be hateful or mean or anything.

 

I can tell you are not being hateful or mean!  It comes through in your writing.

 

What I am trying to explain is it is "right" because it is how we as a country have been formed.  We have been formed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  That means NO discrimination of those groups of people that have been identified by the government as requiring extra protection because of the history of discrimination they have suffered in America.  That is why it is right.

 

People can practice their religion.  People cannot use their religion as a reason to discriminate in the public sphere.  It is simple.  And it is a basic premise of life in modern America.

[Catwoman]

If you had actually read any of the articles posted on this subject, then you would know that it was one of the items brought up in the legal battle. It is one of the reasons that he lost the case. Claiming that it is irrelevant or a stretch or making a mockery of the case is therefore pretty strange.

 

OK, now you're being condescending.  :glare:

 

I don't particularly care that it was brought up in the legal battle. I think it is an absolutely absurd comparison to make, and I am entitled to that opinion.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

And this is where I just can't agree. Business owners should be allowed to practice their religion and not be forced out of business. Really and truly that is not right. And guess what? If someone had a wedding chapel and refused to marry a hetero couple I would feel the same way. Their business. Their decisions. But I know this is not reality in America. I just want someone to explain how they think it's right. I heard and understood how providing the cake wouldn't say they agreed with it. But the actual person performing the wedding is different and just saying it's against the law isn't what I'm looking for.

 

I should have never even entered this conversation but I am being sincere and not trying to be hateful or mean or anything.

 

Do you believe that only people whose religion tells them that same-sex relationships are wrong in the eyes of God should be exempt from the discrimination laws in place in this country? That the discrimination should be allowed in this one case only?

 

ETA: I'm sorry, I should clarify--what I really wanted to ask was, do you believe that it would be OK for people who feel that serving certain types of customers (in this case, we're talking about same-sex couples) would be against their religious beliefs should be exempt from the discrimination laws of their jurisdiction?

 

(I won't remove my original question in case anyone's in the process of replying.)

[fraidycat]

Business =/= church.

 

Therefore a business must follow the law. There is no separation of business and state.

 

They would not be forced out of business unless they chose to not follow the law. Which again is a choice, not force.

 

Nobody is stopping the business owner from practicing their religion, praying to their god, believing their beliefs, or any other form of "practice". What they are doing is not allowing the owner to force those religious practices on another human.

[Mrs Mungo]

And this is where I just can't agree. Business owners should be allowed to practice their religion and not be forced out of business.

Once again, nobody is being forced out of business. That isn't what is happening.

 

Really and truly that is not right. And guess what? If someone had a wedding chapel and refused to marry a hetero couple I would feel the same way. Their business. Their decisions. But I know this is not reality in America.

Homosexuals are not a protected class in all states, so it is reality in some states. But, some states have made them a protected class. It is illegal in those states to discriminate against them. Do you think religious business owners get to pick and choose which laws to follow?

 

I just want someone to explain how they think it's right.

Business owners who own open to the public businesses don't get to discriminate and refuse to serve Muslims or black people. I think that is a good thing. I appreciate the fact that the bank won't refuse to let me open an account because I am a woman and that a restaurant can't refuse to serve me because I am not quite white enough.

 

 

I heard and understood how providing the cake wouldn't say they agreed with it. But the actual person performing the wedding is different and just saying it's against the law isn't what I'm looking for.

If a wedding chapel has organized itself as a for profit, open to the public business, then they have to serve people equally under state and federal law. They can't refuse to serve interracial couples or people with kids or other protected classes of people. Period. If they don't like that, then there are other options for them.

[Catwoman]

The judge thought it was relevant. From a news story:

"In handing down Friday’s decision, Judge Robert N. Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts noted that Phillips had previously made cakes for the “marriage†of two dogs, but made a policy of refusing to serve same-sex couples. By definition, that policy constitutes unlawful discrimination, the judge found."

 

See, I think there were so many reasonable, valid, important points upon which to focus, that it was absolutely ludicrous to bring the dog wedding into the mix.  I don't particularly care for the comparisons between a (gay) wedding between two human beings and a silly joke of a dog wedding, when the real issue would seem to be baking a cake for heterosexual human couples and refusing to do the same for another human couple who happens to be gay.

 

Whatever side of the argument you're on, the dog thing seems both unnecessary and absurd -- and I definitely think the judge was ridiculous to make the dog issue a part of his ruling.

[KungFuPanda]

It's a fair point.  How else to denote that group?  I have seen them referred to as "fundamentalists" or "Pentecostals" or "born agains."  None of those labels seem to work.  What would you call the type of Christian that is working to ensure that their brand of Christian morality becomes the law of the land?  The people that are working to get Christian symbols into government buildings?  The people that are working to use religion as an excuse not to follow federal anti-discrimination legislation?  If there is a better categorization I would be happy to use it.

I use 'Fundie.' It's not a term I use for all fundamentalists . . . just the annoying ones :-) Fundamentalists can be delightful people. Fundies are like fingernails on a chalkboard.

[busymama7]

Business =/= church.

 

Therefore a business must follow the law. There is no separation of business and state.

 

They would not be forced out of business unless they chose to not follow the law. Which again is a choice, not force.

 

Nobody is stopping the business owner from practicing their religion, praying to their god, believing their beliefs, or any other form of "practice". What they are doing is not allowing the owner to force those religious practices on another human.

But but but it's going the other way. The gov is forcing them to practice beliefs that aren't their own in their business. I know it's a choice they can go open a church blah blah. But it's the same as the HL employees. They can go work somewhere else right? Don't like it leave. Don't like that the law is forcing you I marry same sex couples? Go do something else. I just can't agree with that.

[busymama7]

Do you believe that only people whose religion tells them that same-sex relationships are wrong in the eyes of God should be exempt from the discrimination laws in place in this country? That the discrimination should be allowed in this one case only?

I don't have a good answer for this. I don't. I keep trying to come up with another example/comparison and I can't.

[KungFuPanda]

I don't know how cherry pie got mixed into the middle of this thread, but I like cherry pie. I wanted to defend cherry pie. Can I defend cherry pie without being discriminatory against other pies. I don't think cherry pie is part of a protected class. I do like all kinds of pies.

 

 

I'm gonna eat pie and watch those two mothers-of-four duke it out. I'm picturing four kids at the corner of the boxing ring coaching mom between rounds.

 

 

So joke weddings are not offensive to the definition and sacred nature of marriage, but the sincerely offered promise from one person to another to give care and compassion in good times and bad is?

When the idea of two dogs having a ceremony is less reviled than two people of the same gender pledging love and support there is something seriously amiss.

That's because dogs rarely write their own vows.

[Corraleno]

And this is where I just can't agree. Business owners should be allowed to practice their religion and not be forced out of business. Really and truly that is not right. And guess what? If someone had a wedding chapel and refused to marry a hetero couple I would feel the same way. Their business. Their decisions. But I know this is not reality in America. I just want someone to explain how they think it's right. I heard and understood how providing the cake wouldn't say they agreed with it. But the actual person performing the wedding is different and just saying it's against the law isn't what I'm looking for.

 

I should have never even entered this conversation but I am being sincere and not trying to be hateful or mean or anything.

 

Business owners — as well as everyone else living in this country — absolutely have the right to practice their religion. No one wants to take that right away. Everyone has the right to attend whatever religious services they choose, to read whatever scriptures they choose, to believe whatever they want. 

 

Requiring a business owner to treat all customers fairly does not interfere with anyone's right to practice their religion. If your religion dictates that you cannot in good conscience follow the laws that apply to a specific business, then don't go into that specific business! If you don't want to have to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples, in a state where gay people have the same legal right to marry as straight people, then don't run a business performing wedding ceremonies. If you don't want to sell wedding cakes to gay customers, then don't sell wedding cakes in a state where it's illegal to discriminate against gay customers. 

[Sdel]

Somebody working through their sexual identity is perfectly valid, but is not evidence that all LGBTIQ people can, wish to, or should be required to, change sexual preferences.

 

TBH, you could just as well say she's a gay woman putting a lot of effort into being straight.

 

I wasn't suggesting that.  The inference I was responding to was that someone didn't know anyone who was 'straight' who had put forth effort into being gay.  Honestly, no matter which way you want to go....I wouldn't consider years of engaging or seeking relationships of one sexual orientation or the other as "no effort" or dismiss it so lightly as "lying to themselves", but I would also not argue that someone who eventually decided an orientation "wasn't working out" was really the orientation they were claiming to be either. 

 

It actually takes *a lot* of effort, and a bit of something else, for a person to go so far against what is being argued as *immutable nature*, and for whatever reason, it is actually quite common.

 

Stefanie

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I don't have a good answer for this. I don't. I keep trying to come up with another example/comparison and I can't.

 

Then you must realize that this is at the heart of the problem. People have used various interpretations of the Bible to justify all kinds of discrimination and segregation in the past, to avoid serving (or hiring) Jews, Muslims, blacks, etc. As someone else pointed out, thousands--maybe millions--of people fought, and many died, to get laws put in place to prevent precisely that kind of discrimination. 

 

If you don't believe that we should do away with all our discrimination laws (and it sounds like you don't) and you don't believe those kinds of business owners should be allowed to use the Bible to discriminate against those people, what shall we then do about discrimination against THESE people? If we allow this particular exemption, then we'll also need to allow religious exemptions for those who will use the Bible to refuse to serve other people. 

 

What is the solution? Allow all, or allow none? Which direction would benefit us as a society more? 

[fraidycat]

But but but it's going the other way. The gov is forcing them to practice beliefs that aren't their own in their business. I know it's a choice they can go open a church blah blah. But it's the same as the HL employees. They can go work somewhere else right? Don't like it leave. Don't like that the law is forcing you I marry same sex couples? Go do something else. I just can't agree with that.

Who said the business owner had to BELIEVE anything about this chapel wedding? Is the chapel owner being forced to BE gay, or just perform the same service he provides every other day for any other couple who wants it?

 

What is there not to agree with? If you provide a service, provide it for everybody. Don't want to provide it for everybody, don't provide the service. It really is that simple.

[Frances]

But but but it's going the other way. The gov is forcing them to practice beliefs that aren't their own in their business. I know it's a choice they can go open a church blah blah. But it's the same as the HL employees. They can go work somewhere else right? Don't like it leave. Don't like that the law is forcing you I marry same sex couples? Go do something else. I just can't agree with that.

I just researched this and they don't have to go do something else. They have now changed to a religious corporation and have been told they won't be in violation of the city's anti-discrimination laws for refusing to marry same sex couples. They were actually the ones who brought attention to themselves after courts struck down the same sex marriage ban in the state. They said they would go out of business before marrying a gay couple. The controversy did not start because a gay couple filed a complaint. Under their prior business model, they were fine with performing civil, non-religious ceremonies or religious ceremonies. Now they say they will only perform traditional Christian marriages.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't have a good answer for this. I don't. I keep trying to come up with another example/comparison and I can't.

What if the same wedding chapel refused to do weddings for Muslims, Hindus and Jews? Wouldn't those ceremonies be against the Christian religion?

 

What if the owner believed that interracial marriage was forbidden by The Bible (yes, some Christians believe that)?

 

Do you think the owner of a wedding chapel who doesn't want to do a wedding that doesn't exactly conform to their personal religious values should be able to refuse for any reason?

[KungFuPanda]

This thread is especially awesome if you drink every time someone says "dog wedding."

[busymama7]

Then you must realize that this is at the heart of the problem. People have used various interpretations of the Bible to justify all kinds of discrimination and segregation in the past, to avoid serving (or hiring) Jews, Muslims, blacks, etc. As someone else pointed out, thousands--maybe millions--of people fought, and many died, to get laws put in place to prevent precisely that kind of discrimination.

 

If you don't believe that we should do away with all our discrimination laws (and it sounds like you don't) and you don't believe those kinds of business owners should be allowed to use the Bible to discriminate against those people, what shall we then do about discrimination against THESE people? If we allow this particular exemption, then we'll also need to allow religious exemptions for those who will use the Bible to refuse to serve other people.

 

What is the solution? Allow all, or allow none? Which direction would benefit us as a society more?

Actually while I don't believe it is moral to discriminate against someone based on race etc I'm not sure I agree that the government outlawing it is really the answer either. You can change peoples hearts by force. Maybe it's a step but real change in human behavior has to be within themselves. I'm just not sure if this is the governments place. And I think this is kinda why. Where does it end? Who gets to decide for everyone else? I am pro small government and free market and free will so it just doesn't set well with me.

 

And I'm mostly just thinking aloud now.

[Mrs Mungo]

Actually while I don't believe it is moral to discriminate against someone based on race etc I'm not sure I agree that the government outlawing it is really the answer either. You can change peoples hearts by force. Maybe it's a step but real change in human behavior has to be within themselves. I'm just not sure if this is the governments place. And I think this is kinda why. Where does it end? Who gets to decide for everyone else? I am pro small government and free market and free will so it just doesn't set well with me.

 

And I'm mostly just thinking aloud now.

Do you think you might feel differently if you had ever experienced life as a minority? It isn't easy. I have known more than one military spouse who left Hawaii and let their husband finish out their duty here alone because they couldn't handle being a minority.

 

Eta: and no, force doesn't change people's hearts, not the people you are forcing. But, their children's hearts will not be the same when they grow up in a world where people are treated equally.

[busymama7]

What if the same wedding chapel refused to do weddings for Muslims, Hindus and Jews? Wouldn't those ceremonies be against the Christian religion?

 

What if the owner believed that interracial marriage was forbidden by The Bible (yes, some Christians believe that)?

 

Do you think the owner of a wedding chapel who doesn't want to do a wedding that doesn't exactly conform to their personal religious values should be able to refuse for any reason?

Yes I think I do. So if the society doesn't support that behavior then the business will no longer operate right? Problem solved. But if that business can serve a segment of society and stay in operation then fine. But coming in a telling them they have to is heavy handed and not what I support.

 

You say just go open another business. I say go find someone else to marry you. Don't force this person to who doesn't want to or doesn't believe in it.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Then you must realize that this is at the heart of the problem. People have used various interpretations of the Bible to justify all kinds of discrimination and segregation in the past, to avoid serving (or hiring) Jews, Muslims, blacks, etc. As someone else pointed out, thousands--maybe millions--of people fought, and many died, to get laws put in place to prevent precisely that kind of discrimination. 

 

If you don't believe that we should do away with all our discrimination laws (and it sounds like you don't) and you don't believe those kinds of business owners should be allowed to use the Bible to discriminate against those people, what shall we then do about discrimination against THESE people? If we allow this particular exemption, then we'll also need to allow religious exemptions for those who will use the Bible to refuse to serve other people. 

 

What is the solution? Allow all, or allow none? Which direction would benefit us as a society more? 

 

And lest anyone imagine that that sort of thing couldn't possibly happen anymore, I'll give you just a few quick links:

 

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/religious-racism-texas-church-argues-theres-biblical-precedent-strict-racial

 

 

 

The Appleby church, whose pastor could not immediately be reached for comment, proclaims a litany of racist beliefs on its website: The black descendants of Ham like fair-skinned women, of course. And “the proof of the presence of God among the Israelites was the absence of the black skinned folk of Canaan …  It is obvious God is a separator, not a mixer. It is God who set the boundaries.â€

 

This happened in 2013.

 

http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/anti-semitism-usa/adl-poll-anti-semitic-attitudes-america-decline-3-percent.html

 

 

 

A surprisingly large number of Americans continue to believe that “Jews were responsible for the death of Christ.†Twenty-six percent (26%) of Americans agreed with that statement, down from 31 percent in 2011.

 

It's a short trip from this one to "making me serve/hire Jews is against my freedom of religion." 26% is a lot of American citizens!

[busymama7]

Actually while I don't believe it is moral to discriminate against someone based on race etc I'm not sure I agree that the government outlawing it is really the answer either. You cant change peoples hearts by force. Maybe it's a step but real change in human behavior has to be within themselves. I'm just not sure if this is the governments place. And I think this is kinda why. Where does it end? Who gets to decide for everyone else? I am pro small government and free market and free will so it just doesn't set well with me.

 

And I'm mostly just thinking aloud now.

Ugh I thought I was editing to fix it to "can't"

[Corraleno]

But but but it's going the other way. The gov is forcing them to practice beliefs that aren't their own in their business. I

 

No one is forcing anyone to practice homosexuality against their will. If you think that homosexual acts are sinful, then don't engage in homosexual acts. If you don't want to abide by the laws that apply to a specific business, then don't own that kind of business.

 

 

Don't like that the law is forcing you I marry same sex couples? Go do something else. I just can't agree with that.

 

The thing about laws is that you have to follow them whether you agree with them or not. There are plenty of laws I don't agree with, but I know that if I break them, there will be legal consequences. I don't get to claim that I'm above the law just because I disagree with it.

[Catwoman]

This thread is especially awesome if you drink every time someone says "dog wedding."

 

Oh great.

 

Now I have to go back and re-read the entire thread.  :D

 

(Hey, if I'm gonna play, I'm gonna do it right!)

 

 

[fraidycat]

Actually while I don't believe it is moral to discriminate against someone based on race etc I'm not sure I agree that the government outlawing it is really the answer either. You can change peoples hearts by force. Maybe it's a step but real change in human behavior has to be within themselves. I'm just not sure if this is the governments place. And I think this is kinda why. Where does it end? Who gets to decide for everyone else? I am pro small government and free market and free will so it just doesn't set well with me.

 

And I'm mostly just thinking aloud now.

For many, they don't care if the change is real or in the heart. They care that they can't be refused a burger at lunch time, a tank of gas in their car, a hotel room at bedtime, or a cake for their celebration party.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes I think I do. So if the society doesn't support that behavior then the business will no longer operate right? Problem solved. But if that business can serve a segment of society and stay in operation then fine. But coming in a telling them they have to is heavy handed and not what I support.

 

You say just go open another business. I say go find someone else to marry you. Don't force this person to who doesn't want to or doesn't believe in it.

Wow. This is actually shocking to me.

 

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/library/civilrights/sitins/sitin.jpg

 

Eta a story to go with the photo:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/courage-at-the-greensboro-lunch-counter-4507661/

[KungFuPanda]

Oh great.

 

Now I have to go back and re-read the entire thread.  :D

 

(Hey, if I'm gonna play, I'm gonna do it right!)

Dog wedding

 

Dog wedding

 

Dog wedding

 

 

 

 

You're welcome.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Actually while I don't believe it is moral to discriminate against someone based on race etc I'm not sure I agree that the government outlawing it is really the answer either. You can change peoples hearts by force. Maybe it's a step but real change in human behavior has to be within themselves. I'm just not sure if this is the governments place. And I think this is kinda why. Where does it end? Who gets to decide for everyone else? I am pro small government and free market and free will so it just doesn't set well with me.

 

And I'm mostly just thinking aloud now.

 

OK. So I'm going to assume you are a young, white, middle-class, Christian woman. I'm also going to assume that you've not ever lived anywhere where you had to live under systemic discrimination on a regular basis. Please read the links I posted and think about how lucky you were not to grow up as a black woman, or heck, as a white woman, in the 1950s and 1960s. Also, maybe take a pass by the Stormfront message boards I mentioned earlier. Their boards boast 300,000 members. Their slogan is, "Every month is white history month." And maybe consider how Creekland pointed out how active the KKK still is in her area. These are the people who are just waiting for an opportunity like this--for our invasive government to relax their controls just a bit. Are you really comfortable with the idea of letting them have free reign again? Are you comfortable with aligning yourselves with ANY of their beliefs? Could you live with yourself if you fought for the elimination of discrimination laws and they got a nice, solid foothold in our society again?

[Frances]

Yes I think I do. So if the society doesn't support that behavior then the business will no longer operate right? Problem solved. But if that business can serve a segment of society and stay in operation then fine. But coming in a telling them they have to is heavy handed and not what I support.

 

You say just go open another business. I say go find someone else to marry you. Don't force this person to who doesn't want to or doesn't believe in it.

They don't have to go open another business. They changed their organizational type and can now refuse to marry gay couples and not run afoul of the law. The businesses are not without options. The Colorado baker decided to keep his bakery open and to only sell products he was willing to sell to everyone.

[KidsHappen]

There are some who never believed in separation of church and state.

 

Some people claim the U.S. is a Christian nation simply because most of the founding fathers identified themselves as Christian. They conveniently forget the fact that those founding fathers specifically wanted separation of church and state. They also don't seem to really understand or believe that some founding fathers were Christian more because of custom at the time than actual belief.

That is not neccessarily true though, depending on who is counted as a founding father of course but of the big names Jefferson, Franklin and Adams were not Christians.

[Mrs Mungo]

OK. So I'm going to assume you are a young, white, middle-class, Christian woman. I'm also going to assume that you've not ever lived anywhere where you had to live under systemic discrimination on a regular basis.

And honestly, she is assuming this to be generous to you. Have you even say...watched a movie like The Help?

[busymama7]

No one is forcing anyone to practice homosexuality against their will. If you think that homosexual acts are sinful, then don't engage in homosexual acts. If you don't want to abide by the laws that apply to a specific business, then don't own that kind of business.

 

 

 

 

The thing about laws is that you have to follow them whether you agree with them or not. There are plenty of laws I don't agree with, but I know that if I break them, there will be legal consequences. I don't get to claim that I'm above the law just because I disagree with it.

I wasn't saying that. I was saying I don't agree with the law. Not that people don't have to live by the law or are above it. I just was discussing the actual law.

[Corraleno]

Actually while I don't believe it is moral to discriminate against someone based on race etc I'm not sure I agree that the government outlawing it is really the answer either. 

 

Really??? Do you think we would be better off if the Civil Rights movement had never happened? If restaurants were still allowed to have signs out front saying "whites only"? If entire towns were allowed to forbid blacks from even being there after dark? If any employer could simply refuse to hire Mexicans or Asians? 

 

I have a hard time believing that I'm reading this, on a classical education board of all places, in 2014.  :sad:

[Mrs Mungo]

Really??? Do you think we would be better off if the Civil Rights movement had never happened? If restaurants were still allowed to have signs out front saying "whites only"? If entire towns were allowed to forbid blacks from even being there after dark? If any employer could simply refuse to hire Mexicans or Asians?

 

I have a hard time believing that I'm reading this, on a classical education board of all places, in 2014. :sad:

It certainly implies to me the utter failure to teach history in some quarters. I agree with this post, but I cant "like" it. :(

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I don't think it's a failure to teach it. I think it's a failure of empathy and a "But what about MEEEE!" mentality. From Christians, of all people. It makes me sad.

 

And on that note, I have to go deal with the crazy that cropped up in my actual real life tonight. Good night, everyone. 

[fraidycat]

 

I have a hard time believing that I'm reading this, on a classical education board of all places, in 2014. :sad:

Scary stuff, eh?

[busymama7]

OK. So I'm going to assume you are a young, white, middle-class, Christian woman. I'm also going to assume that you've not ever lived anywhere where you had to live under systemic discrimination on a regular basis. Please read the links I posted and think about how lucky you were not to grow up as a black woman, or heck, as a white woman, in the 1950s and 1960s. Also, maybe take a pass by the Stormfront message boards I mentioned earlier. And maybe consider how Creekland pointed out how active the KKK still is in her area. These are the people who are just waiting for an opportunity like this--for our invasive government to relax their controls just a bit. Are you really comfortable with the idea of letting them have free reign again? Are you comfortable with aligning yourselves with ANY of their beliefs? Could you live with yourself if you fought for the elimination of discrimination laws and they got a nice, solid foothold in our society again?

It's true. Well except the young part ;)

 

Ugh. I get what you are saying. I do. And I can't really form any more coherent thoughts. (I'm crazy tired) This honestly has been a good thing for my brain. I am exploring why I feel so strongly about this issue. It's near to me because I do believe in the sanctity of marriage. I've said it before but again I don't care what anyone does in their private life nor do I care about civil unions or maybe even calling it marriages. I don't agree with it but whatever. I can just live my life and not worry about it. But the idea of the government forcing a religious business owner to do something so against their beliefs really does bother me. It's close to home to because I could see it affecting me in my profession.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

It's true. Well except the young part ;)

 

Ugh. I get what you are saying. I do. And I can't really form any more coherent thoughts. (I'm crazy tired) This honestly has been a good thing for my brain. I am exploring why I feel so strongly about this issue. It's near to me because I do believe in the sanctity of marriage. I've said it before but again I don't care what anyone does in their private life nor do I care about civil unions or maybe even calling it marriages. I don't agree with it but whatever. I can just live my life and not worry about it. But the idea of the government forcing a religious business owner to do something so against their beliefs really does bother me. It's close to home to because I could see it affecting me in my profession.

 

You know, I'll be honest with you. It bothers me too. However, the alternative bothers me far, far, FAR more. Something has to give. I choose the greater good of society over the perceived rights of a few uncomfortable individuals. 

[busymama7]

Really??? Do you think we would be better off if the Civil Rights movement had never happened? If restaurants were still allowed to have signs out front saying "whites only"? If entire towns were allowed to forbid blacks from even being there after dark? If any employer could simply refuse to hire Mexicans or Asians?

 

I have a hard time believing that I'm reading this, on a classical education board of all places, in 2014. :sad:

No I did not say that. I know it sounded like it but it's not what was in my head. Not really sure how to explain it any better. I think what I meant was in an ideal world(utopia) this just would not be an issue. The government wouldn't have to force people to live moral just lives. Humans would just make good choices and live together peaceably. Ugh. I'm probably making it worse.

[StaceyinLA]

 

NVM - I really don't want to post anything until I have read the entire thread.

[Frances]

Yes I think I do. So if the society doesn't support that behavior then the business will no longer operate right? Problem solved. But if that business can serve a segment of society and stay in operation then fine. But coming in a telling them they have to is heavy handed and not what I support.

 

You say just go open another business. I say go find someone else to marry you. Don't force this person to who doesn't want to or doesn't believe in it.

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a country that leaves it to the free market to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.