Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    I only asked because the Jesus Christ the God's son has averse to violence. Or so I have been told.

    BTW, how dare you to say Jesus will be illegal in the In God We Trust land?
    Doktor,
    A middle-eastern looking man showing up in the country with a AR-15 on a white horse splattered in blood?
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
      In this extremely Jewish area, there are dozens of places that aren't kosher and Jews can't eat in them. So what happens now? Will these restaurants be forced to suddenly go through a drastic, extremely expensive change just so if a Jew wants to eat in that establishment, the option will be available to them?
      In the example you provided, businesses are providing certain services (Kosher or non-Kosher - their choice) - the issue here is not the 'kind/type' of services provided by the business (there is an associated discussion on the 'kinds/types' of services provided by businesses that is also being played out, but I'll leave that for later), the issue is whether or not those businesses provide those services to everyone (irrespective of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc). The discussion over the rights of businesses to refuse service to homosexual individuals on the basis of religious beliefs is, IMO, strongly analogous to segregationist laws/policies/attitudes in the past, provided we are not still arguing over 'homosexuality is a choice'.
      Last edited by Agnostic Muslim; 26 Feb 14,, 17:19.
      Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
      https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Triple C View Post
        Doktor,
        A middle-eastern looking man showing up in the country with a AR-15 on a white horse splattered in blood?
        How is a ME white horse supposed to arrive in USA? On top of it to pass the border with armed horseman?
        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Monash View Post
          1) Yes the existence of a person who first puts forward a proposition IS essential to its application. You can't apply a system, method or idea if it isn't proposed by someone in the first place. The reason I have Pirelli tyres on my car is that someone invented the wheel. They didn't suddenly materialize out of this air! Gandhi had to synthesize and spread his ideas, if he didn't you wouldn't be able to apply them. If Aristotle didn't exist the fact that you might be receptive to his ideas is irrelevant.
          Do you know or care who invented the wheel? Do you know the method of Aristotle to be true and applicable?

          You know where I am going with this. Of course someone came up with these ideas. But the historical accuracy surrounding the inventor/ philosopher is irrelevant in applying said idea.

          Not so with Christianity. It is not enough that I follow Christian code of morals. I have to believe in the existence of Christ as a historical figure as well as in him being the son of god, in order to be Christian. And given his existence itself is on shaky grounds, it is weird to me that teaching attributed to him would be taken with any measure of seriousness in this day and age.

          Originally posted by Monash View Post
          If Aristotle didn't exist the fact that you might be receptive to his ideas is irrelevant.
          If his ideas work, why do I care if he existed or not?

          Originally posted by Monash View Post
          2) I didn't single out Christ, you did. You made his historical existence an issue in the context of a discussion about the biblical context of Arizona's anti-gay legislation.
          And tomorrow, when the town with all Councillors belonging to the Cult of the Celestial Teapot decree that the townspeople shall not socialize with heretical coffee drinkers, I will be up in arms against them too.

          Originally posted by Monash View Post
          During the course of this discussion I pointed out that as far as we were aware this was a topic upon which Christ himself was largely mute! (The Old Testament being the texts used to justify anti-gay rhetoric by certain people.)
          Yeah, about that

          Romans 1:26-27
          26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
          Corinthians 6:9-11
          Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
          Timothy 1:10
          the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,[a] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound[b] doctrine,
          Originally posted by Monash View Post
          3) Yes all religions have been used to justify unjustifiable acts. So has nationalism, socialism, (all the other ism's), racial stereotyping, manifest destiny, political expediency, progress, 'business', science and for that matter virtually every other human form of endeavor. So why single out religion as the big baddie?
          Come on, you do not need me to tell you that that is a fallacy. The opposite of blind religious dogma or ideology is not any other blind ideology (the isms you talk about). It is open rational thought, logic and empathy. Also, for any other ism (except possibly fascism) it is clearly said that one must hate or not associate with some groups in order not to burn in hell for eternity?
          "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
            The discussion over the rights of businesses to refuse service to homosexual individuals on the basis of religious beliefs is, IMO, strongly analogous to segregationist laws/policies/attitudes in the past, provided we are not still arguing over 'homosexuality is a choice'.
            And per the law, private actors of any kind are allowed to refuse service on the basis of race. What they are NOT allowed to do is impose an unburden on interstate commerce, which has been interpreted as not permitted refusing service based on race.
            Nit-picking?
            No.
            They are two entirely different powers with different results. A government empowered to restrict discrimination can only restrict discrimination. A government empowered to regulate interstate commerce under vague rules has the power to do whatever it wants.
            In regards to "what's on the menu": if the government were actually empowered to restrict discrmination, it could not force you to offer Kosher food. But that's not what the government does. The government is empowered to do anything it wants provided it can make a case that it substantially affects interstate commerce.
            So, yes, the government can order your restaraunt to serve kosher food if it believes it affects interstate commerce.
            Case example: ConLaw in chief and 4 robed justices believe that health insurers can be required to "expand their menu" to suit public health needs. This was not ruled unconstitutional, only the mandate was.
            I do not see how baking a wedding cake is an issue for interstate commerce. But I am not aware of any federal cases that pertain to wedding cakes directly. What the government probably would say is that the bakery buys flour from New Mexico or has a credit line with JP Morgan Chase and therefore is engaged in interstate commerce.
            Way too expansive a reading for my tastes.

            You do not necessarily require legal rules to require integration. Private clubs are immune from Title II rules, but many private organizations have integrated anyways, both by gender and by race. Even some religious organzations have taken to ordaining female ministers. I am more interested in restricting government authority than ensuring social equality (which, as far as I am concerned, is a fictional goal anyways).
            "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

            Comment


            • Originally posted by antimony View Post
              Not so with Christianity. It is not enough that I follow Christian code of morals. I have to believe in the existence of Christ as a historical figure as well as in him being the son of god, in order to be Christian. And given his existence itself is on shaky grounds, it is weird to me that teaching attributed to him would be taken with any measure of seriousness in this day and age.
              I am not following your reasoning. For you to be a Christian, you have to believe in Christ as the Son of God (we're all Sons of God btw). That is the definition of Christianity. The same thing for Buddhism. For you to believe in Buddha, you have to believe that Buddha came up with his teachings.

              The Eygtians called their pharodes, gods. Archilles was believed to be the son of Zeus. Up until the Russian Revolution, Monarchs ruled by the right of God.

              What are you getting at?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                I am not following your reasoning. For you to be a Christian, you have to believe in Christ as the Son of God (we're all Sons of God btw). That is the definition of Christianity. The same thing for Buddhism. For you to believe in Buddha, you have to believe that Buddha came up with his teachings.

                The Eygtians called their pharodes, gods. Archilles was believed to be the son of Zeus. Up until the Russian Revolution, Monarchs ruled by the right of God.

                What are you getting at?
                I should have thought it was clear enough.

                To be a Christian, I have to believe not only in the historical existence of Jesus (personally, I am agnostic to his existence) but also that the miracles and supernatural deeds ascribed to him positively happened. He is the savior, and without him, his teachings are actually useless (unlike the wheel which I can use regardless of my knowledge of who invented it)

                So to be a Christian, I have to believe that his mother was a virgin at birth, he turned water into wine and rose from the dead. Do we have historical, non religious sources that convincingly attest to any of this?

                If not, then what is the basis of the Christian faith in today's world, apart from the obviously biased Bible? And yet, this faith is used for discrimination.

                Do you see now what I am getting at?

                Also, in my view, all religions spread this type of poison around, so I am not singling out Christianity, except in the context of this particular thread.
                "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
                  And per the law, private actors of any kind are allowed to refuse service on the basis of race. What they are NOT allowed to do is impose an unburden on interstate commerce, which has been interpreted as not permitted refusing service based on race.
                  Nit-picking?
                  No.
                  I completely agree with the distinction you pointed out (and the impact of how the commerce clause will be interpreted in such cases) - it is a valid one and certainly not 'nit-picking', but at the same time I think it is important to highlight how the behavior exhibited by the bakery owner is analogous to racism towards blacks (for example) to put the behavior in perspective and not allow proponents of discrimination to hide behind 'religious rights'.
                  In regards to "what's on the menu": if the government were actually empowered to restrict discrmination, it could not force you to offer Kosher food. But that's not what the government does. The government is empowered to do anything it wants provided it can make a case that it substantially affects interstate commerce.
                  So, yes, the government can order your restaraunt to serve kosher food if it believes it affects interstate commerce.
                  Case example: ConLaw in chief and 4 robed justices believe that health insurers can be required to "expand their menu" to suit public health needs. This was not ruled unconstitutional, only the mandate was.
                  The above is part of the 'associated discussion on the kinds/types of goods and services offered by businesses' that I did not want to delve into at this point, but, again, no disagreements on my end with the gist of your comment.
                  Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                  https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by antimony View Post
                    I should have thought it was clear enough.

                    To be a Christian, I have to believe not only in the historical existence of Jesus (personally, I am agnostic to his existence) but also that the miracles and supernatural deeds ascribed to him positively happened. He is the savior, and without him, his teachings are actually useless (unlike the wheel which I can use regardless of my knowledge of who invented it)
                    Again, I don't see your point. To be a CHRISTian, you have to believe that CHRIST is the Son of God. If you're not a Christian, who cares what the Christians say about Christ?

                    Originally posted by antimony View Post
                    If not, then what is the basis of the Christian faith in today's world, apart from the obviously biased Bible? And yet, this faith is used for discrimination.
                    And your point is?

                    We don't allow Mayan Human Sacrafices but to them, it's the norm. Religion has been the basis of civilization since day 1.

                    Originally posted by antimony View Post
                    Do you see now what I am getting at?
                    No, I don't. The US is a Christian nation whether you like it or not. It is a simple historic fact that this country is founded by Christians who believed in the teachings of Christ ... and that includes all their bigotry, inherited or otherwise. Yes, it's getting more secular but to deny that bigotry is to deny the history of the US itself. The bigotry has to be confronted, understood, and at times, left alone.

                    I do not want gays in my house and no government can ever forced me to accept one. But that does not mean that I won't work with them or even break bread with them ... just not in my house.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by antimony View Post
                      I should have thought it was clear enough.

                      To be a Christian, I have to believe not only in the historical existence of Jesus (personally, I am agnostic to his existence) but also that the miracles and supernatural deeds ascribed to him positively happened. He is the savior, and without him, his teachings are actually useless (unlike the wheel which I can use regardless of my knowledge of who invented it)

                      So to be a Christian, I have to believe that his mother was a virgin at birth, he turned water into wine and rose from the dead. Do we have historical, non religious sources that convincingly attest to any of this?

                      If not, then what is the basis of the Christian faith in today's world, apart from the obviously biased Bible? And yet, this faith is used for discrimination.

                      Do you see now what I am getting at?

                      Also, in my view, all religions spread this type of poison around, so I am not singling out Christianity, except in the context of this particular thread.
                      Antimony,

                      You interpretation is one view of Christianity. We Christians all take one thing at face value...that Christ walked the Earth and is the Son of God.

                      Did He perform true miracles or were they parables for good works performed which made Him standout against others at the time?

                      If you locked a Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic, Presbytarian, Anglican, Coptic Christian, Eastern Orthodox, African Methodist Episcopalian, Seventh-Day Adventists, Lutheran, Congregationalist, Pentacostal, Quaker, Menonite and a Shaker all in a room, you may end up with a few divergent views of what a Christian is and what the answer is to the question I just posited.
                      “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                      Mark Twain

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                        dammit AR, i have it on good authority that jesus christ will be coming back with an AR-15 in hand!
                        Love me some LTC Bateman!!!
                        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                        Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Triple C View Post
                          Doktor,
                          A middle-eastern looking man showing up in the country with a AR-15 on a white horse splattered in blood?
                          Negative....everyone knows Christ has flowing light brown hair and has Anglo-Saxon features!
                          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                          Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • To both the Gunny and to Antimony: Let's change the situation a bit.

                            The laws of Kashrut (something being Kosher) have varying levels. There is regular Kosher, which most Orthodox Jews will accept, there are several Kashrut authorities that Orthodox Judaism won't eat, but Reform/Conservative will, and there is Glatt Kosher, which is the only thing the Ultra-Orthodox will eat.

                            So now imagine this situation: A Kosher restaurant, catering to Modern Orthodox Jews, is visited by an Ultra-Orthodox family that doesn't accept the regular Kashrut and demands Glatt meals. To the restaurant owner, regular Kosher is enough, but to the Ultra-Orthodox, anything less than Glatt is not Kosher.

                            So, based on your reasoning, is the restaurant owner in the clear, or can the Ultra-Orthodox family sue the owner because he claimed that he provided a service to Jews, supplying them with Kosher food, but based on his religious beliefs, doesn't feel the need to supply certain Jews with the level of kashrut that they desire because he doesn't believe in it?
                            Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                            Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                            Comment


                            • Are we just looking for a "Gotcha" scenario?

                              The first question would be, Does the Kosher restaurant have on its menu/ regularly serve meals to the regular Kosher standard or do they advertise/regularly make Kashrut Kosher food?

                              If the norm is "Regular Standard" than No the Orthodox Family cannot sue. You cannot compel a business to do something/provide a service that they do not normally provide.

                              Thats where the cake lady and the photographer crossed the line. They denied a service that they advertise and normally provide to customers.

                              How hard is that to understand?

                              Comment


                              • How hard is that to understand?
                                Because they are gay and I have a right to express my distaste to them by overt discrimination .
                                Last edited by troung; 27 Feb 14,, 05:12.
                                To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X