Equality and Tolerance: A Purely Objective View

[TemplarKormac]

Perhaps but do you doubt that America's Christians once discriminated against Jews, often using the levers of gov't, as a matter of course? Ever heard of Blue Laws? They still exist and are enforced.

Of course I know what Blue Laws are. They restrict the buying and selling of certain merchandise on Sundays. Need I remind you that the Supreme Court ruled Blue Laws to be Constitutional many times, namely in McGowan v. Maryland (1961). And yes, those claiming to be Christians once did discriminate against a wide variety of people. I don't doubt it for one minute.

I'm not concerned with how the Supreme Court has dealt with Blue Laws but rather how good American Christians have used not just their religion as an excuse to discriminate but even the levers of gov't. The point being we are moving beyond the days of socially and legally acceptable bigotry and discrimination and we are a better people for it.

So, labeling someone or something as "bigoted" is also seen as a form of discrimination, and many laws are made dealing with "bigotry." Such beliefs are weighed on the levers of government all the time. Where are you when this happens? We are moving beyond a point where personally held beliefs are no longer relevant my friend. Where religion, faith and tradition are nothing but myth and fable for future generations to muse at in their schoolbooks.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Did you even read your own question?

You chose to reinstate institutionalized, government sanctioned, anti-Semitism.

I got it. Maybe others have a different answer.

You did not read or did not comprehend what I posted. Which is it?

 

[SAYIT]

My bigotry? What about yours? Forcing Christian proprietors to tolerate and serve people against their beliefs isn't bigotry?

Yeah, no it's not. I know you feel strongly about this and I think your passion has blurred your rationality. Tolerance and equality are important concepts in America and if you can't deal with others employing those concepts perhaps you should not engage publicly.

Easily countered.

Tolerance and equality are indeed important concepts in America, but if you cant deal with others practicing their beliefs in their own business, maybe you are the one who shouldn't publicly engage or do business with them. My rationality is just fine. It's this double standard on tolerance and equality that I'm having an issue with.

Funny, you don't seem to have a prob with those Blue Laws. The answer remains the same ... the law of the land, just like those Blue Laws which deny Sunday sales, denies any public place the right to discriminate. Sorry.

 

[KNB]

Religion, faith and tradition ARE myths and fables. Do you honestly believe that all the good in the world was ruined by a talking snake?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're kidding.

The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law that respects religion, nor prohibits someone from exercising it therein. Guess what Public Accommodation laws do, buddy? They violate the First Amendment rights of anyone of faith being made to serve people against their beliefs.

Anyone of faith can fuck off back to Candyland with Leprechaun Jesus and his flying entourage of tooth fairy angels. You don't have the religious freedom to vote your stupid bedtime stories into public law.

You don't have the right to force your secular laws on the religious either, buddy.

Really? So if the Congress of the United States made Islam the official religion of the United States,

you are confident that would survive a court challenge?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Anyone of faith can fuck off back to Candyland with Leprechaun Jesus and his flying entourage of tooth fairy angels. You don't have the religious freedom to vote your stupid bedtime stories into public law.

You don't have the right to force your secular laws on the religious either, buddy.

Actually, we do. We have that right because we are not governed by your fairy tales. So when you braindead talking monkeys start jabbering on about your imaginary friend in the sky dictating your mangled interpretation of morality to the general public, We the People have the right to tell you to fuck off because the First Amendment says so.

You do not have the right to vote your ridiculous fairy tales into public law.

That is an improper rationale. And unfortunately for you, you are not governed by the laws of reality, but liberalism. You do not have the right to vote your ridiculous and secular viewpoints on other people. You might not be governed by our "fairy tales" but we are. Accept the fact that there are people who use these "fairy tales" to direct them in their lives and move on.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Notice how the latter part of that sentence implies that you cannot make laws to restrict a person from believing in God or any gods, nor acting in accordance with God's or any gods law.

You cite only one half of this clause, and leave out the most important detail.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Religion, faith and tradition ARE myths and fables. Do you honestly believe that all the good in the world was ruined by a talking snake?

Do you believe that nothingness created the world?

 

[KNB]

You don't have the right to force your secular laws on the religious either, buddy.

Actually, we do. We have that right because we are not governed by your fairy tales. So when you braindead talking monkeys start jabbering on about your imaginary friend in the sky dictating your mangled interpretation of morality to the general public, We the People have the right to tell you to fuck off because the First Amendment says so.

You do not have the right to vote your ridiculous fairy tales into public law.

That is an improper rationale. And unfortunately for you, you are not governed by the laws of reality, but liberalism. You do not have the right to vote your ridiculous and secular viewpoints on other people. You might not be governed by our "fairy tales" but we are. Accept the fact that there are people who use these "fairy tales" to direct them in their lives and move on.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Notice how the latter part of that sentence implies that you cannot make laws to restrict a person from believing in God or any gods, nor acting in accordance with God's or any gods law.

You cite only one half of this clause, and leave out the most important detail.

Go ahead, dipshit. Obey your Dog all you want. But you aren't allowed to vote your Dog's interests into public law. If your Dog tells you, "I want you to hate gay people," then that doesn't mean that society needs to pass a law upholding your Dog's wishes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[MENTION=45917]KNB[/MENTION]

In the the Supreme Court Case, Van Orden v. Perry U.S. 677, 688 (2005) it ruled that a display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol did not violate the Constitution. In it, Judge Rehnquist stated in the majority opinion that, "[We] find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence."

Meaning, that our government cannot be a hostile force against religion of any sort, including but not limited to Christianity. The free exercise clause stops government from favoring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

Perhaps if you had any idea the meaning of the First Amendment, you would understand that your beliefs are not the standard.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yeah, no it's not. I know you feel strongly about this and I think your passion has blurred your rationality. Tolerance and equality are important concepts in America and if you can't deal with others employing those concepts perhaps you should not engage publicly.

Easily countered.

Tolerance and equality are indeed important concepts in America, but if you cant deal with others practicing their beliefs in their own business, maybe you are the one who shouldn't publicly engage or do business with them. My rationality is just fine. It's this double standard on tolerance and equality that I'm having an issue with.

Funny, you don't seem to have a prob with those Blue Laws. The answer remains the same ... the law of the land, just like those Blue Laws deny Sunday sales, denies any public place the right to discriminate. Sorry.

Just as you have no problem forcing those of faith from acting based on their religious beliefs in own businesses. I have no problem with those Blue Laws, because they don't discriminate against anyone. The Supreme Court says they don't. And hey, who isn't against a day of rest from the monotony of all work and no play? Under the free exercise clause, the "law of the land" prohibits free exercise of religion. It's plain as day.

No need to apologize. This is a tough issue.

 

[KNB]

If you put up your Dog's 10 Special Wishes then 'equality' means that you also need to include the Torah, the Koran, Dianetics, the Book of Mormon, and even a recipe book for voodoo spells. Do you know what they all have in common? THEY'RE ALL BULLSHIT. That's why they aren't allowed to become American law.

We do know the meaning of the First Amendment, and it is that FACTS are the standard, not beliefs. You can "believe" that there is an imaginary fairy father figure in the clouds and that he hates gay people. Go ahead and believe that retarded shit all you want. But you aren't going to gather up a bunch of other slobbering morons to vote in your imaginary friend's special rules as laws that the rest of rational society has to obey. That's why the First Amendment was written the way it was.

It's a two-way street, chump. Government will stay out of religion if religion stays out of government. If you want to vote your religion into law, then we'll tax your church. Is that fair and balanced?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oy.

There's absolutely no point in discussing this with you any further. And you wonder why so many Conservatives think liberals and Atheists are intolerant and bigoted? Lets look no further than your responses, KNB.

If it was a two way street, smart alec, then why is one side being forced to capitulate to the other under the law?

Instituting taxes against churches would be unconstitutional, since once again, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

[Plasmaball]

an objective view would have the answers in the OP.

And you would make sense. A tall task.

an objective view would have given all the answers to the questions you raised. Or enough to satisfy everyones side in the general sense. You didnt do that, you are just playing the victim card.

 

[BDBoop]

Funniest title ever, source considered.

For future reference - don't include the word 'objective' when you know damn well that is a completely foreign concept to you (by any definition of the word.)

Gays work for a living, and should be able to spend their hard-earned dollars wherever the hell they wish.

 

[Plasmaball]

Interesting. If I ever had the power, perhaps I should force each of you to work against what you believe. Tolerate what you don't accept, believe in what you don't want to believe. Then you yourselves would be howling about how unfair and oppressive it is.

thats because you are a children, and thus your OP is a fail

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did you even read your own question?

You chose to reinstate institutionalized, government sanctioned, anti-Semitism.

I got it. Maybe others have a different answer.

You did not read or did not comprehend what I posted. Which is it?

You said the businessman could refuse service to anyone he chooses, thus, you sided with him in refusing to serve a Jew, because he was a Jew.

That is an act of anti-Semitism. You chose to make it government sanctioned.

If you wish to dispute that, do so with some elaboration beyond repeatedly badgering me with a useless question about whether or not I read your post.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

As far as Christian beliefs and homosexuality go, equality is something that both sides need to observe. Tolerance likewise, should work on an equal plane; respect for beliefs on both sides should be equal, but without one or the other sacrificing what they are or believe in for the other. Gay or Christian, it is wrong to bully one or the other into submission. I am a Christian who inherently believes homosexuality is wrong, but on the other hand, what right does that give me to force a homosexual to change him or herself because of it? It isn't my right to change them but God's if he so chooses. He created all of mankind, so it stands to reason that he has the ability to change them as well.

But it also stands to reason that a levelheaded homosexual shouldn't expect a Christian to change what he believes to sate their demands for tolerance and equality either. To change the beliefs anyone in my opinion, changes the essence of who they are. What right does any man or woman have to forcibly mold another person to fit their idyllic views of their society? But back to equality: Forcing a person to serve a homosexual couple against what he/she believes and adheres to is no better than if the converse were true. Forcing someone to exchange their beliefs for the tolerance and acceptance of another set of beliefs is wrong. There is a fine line between service and belief that needs to be addressed.

When running a business means you have to sacrifice your beliefs to keep the peace, what good is running the business? Is this what the founders meant by "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" When you can't run your business and hold on to your beliefs, are you truly happy? Are you being allowed to live your life the way you see fit? If not, then the laws designed by our government to ensure equality among men only breed discord and malcontent from one group to another, and vice versa. As noted author Tom Robbins says about laws: "Laws, it is said, are for the protection of the people. It's unfortunate that there are no statistics on the number of lives that are clobbered yearly as a result of laws: outmoded laws; laws that found their way onto the books as a result of ignorance, hysteria or political haymaking; antilife laws; biased laws; laws that pretend that reality is fixed and nature is definable; laws that deny people the right to refuse protection. A survey such as that could keep a dozen dull sociologists out of mischief for months."

Why must one person's happiness come at the sacrifice of another's?

why on earth do you think your view is objective?

here's the deal… your bigotry has to end at your doorstep.

have a good day.

My bigotry? What about yours? Forcing Christian proprietors to tolerate and serve people against their beliefs isn't bigotry? Here's the deal, your hypocrisy ends where my rights begin. Don't like it? That's simply too bad.

Remember, don't come crying to the government when the exact same thing is done to you.

Christian proprietors already serve people who go against their beliefs. They just seem to have a special hateful spot for homosexuals.

If christian business owners truly cared about not serving people who go against their beliefs, they would need to have a questionaire outside their door that you had to pass before you could shop there.

Have you ever had a divorce?
Have you ever committed adultery?
Have you ever stolen something?
Ect
Ect

 

[TemplarKormac]

Four responses, four people on my ignore list. If it has anything to do with my job, have a good evening.

 

[BDBoop]

Interesting. If I ever had the power, perhaps I should force each of you to work ...

Backatcha.

 

[TemplarKormac]

why on earth do you think your view is objective?

here's the deal… your bigotry has to end at your doorstep.

have a good day.

My bigotry? What about yours? Forcing Christian proprietors to tolerate and serve people against their beliefs isn't bigotry? Here's the deal, your hypocrisy ends where my rights begin. Don't like it? That's simply too bad.

Remember, don't come crying to the government when the exact same thing is done to you.

Christian proprietors already serve people who go against their beliefs. They just seem to have a special hateful spot for homosexuals.

If christian business owners truly cared about not serving people who go against their beliefs, they would need to have a questionnaire outside their door that you had to pass before you could shop there.

Have you ever had a divorce?
Have you ever committed adultery?
Have you ever stolen something?
Ect
Ect

And who is it that has a special hateful spot for Christians? You went after Chic-Fil-A for their hatred of homosexuals, yet they serve and employ them. Because it's their choice. This argument of yours is incredulous on it's face.