Page 25 of 28 FirstFirst ... 1516171819202122232425262728 LastLast
Results 481 to 500 of 552

Thread: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

  1. #481
    alhoon's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Chania, Greece
    Posts
    21,065

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    https://news.yahoo.com/federal-court...223229105.html

    A federal court in USA spanked the naughty bottom of Minnesota ultraprogressives that had a rule in their anti-discrimination laws that would force a couple to produce videos contrary to their Christian beliefs. The couple didn't have a problem working with gay people, they just didn't want to produce videos of gay weddings as it is their right. And the court upheld that right because frankly, while anti-discrimination laws are sadly needed, that part of "we don't give a crap about your beliefs, you will do it" is hot garbage, not anti-discrimination.

    Now, if anyone here thinks that the anti-discrimination law would be enforced with the same vigor against a muslim couple that denied to produce same-sex weddings they are behind the times. The ultraprogressives rarely spend their energy on equally (or worse) discriminating practices of non-Christians.
    DIE: Diversity, Inclusion, Equality (Pun on SJWs, I am not far-right)
    _______________________________________________________
    Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.

    Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
    Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).

  2. #482
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,414

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Apparently it was a 2-1 decision, with a Trump-appointed judge breaking the tie. Thank you, Cocaine Mitch.

    How McConnell and the Senate Helped Trump Set Records in Appointing Judges | PBS

    Leftists: "Let's put Christians in prison if they don't abandon their religion."
    Also leftists: "How could Christians vote for someone like Trump? I guess they don't have any principles at all. What a bunch of hypocrites."

  3. #483

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    Apparently it was a 2-1 decision, with a Trump-appointed judge breaking the tie. Thank you, Cocaine Mitch.

    How McConnell and the Senate Helped Trump Set Records in Appointing Judges | PBS

    Leftists: "Let's put Christians in prison if they don't abandon their religion."
    Also leftists: "How could Christians vote for someone like Trump? I guess they don't have any principles at all. What a bunch of hypocrites."
    It is certainly true that many people on the atheist left hold the religious in contempt. Christianity is a particular target for aggression because it isn't protected by the bizarre hierarchy of intersectional oppression which informs the views of left wing radicals.

  4. #484

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    https://news.yahoo.com/federal-court...223229105.html

    A federal court in USA spanked the naughty bottom of Minnesota ultraprogressives that had a rule in their anti-discrimination laws that would force a couple to produce videos contrary to their Christian beliefs. The couple didn't have a problem working with gay people, they just didn't want to produce videos of gay weddings as it is their right. And the court upheld that right because frankly, while anti-discrimination laws are sadly needed, that part of "we don't give a crap about your beliefs, you will do it" is hot garbage, not anti-discrimination.

    Now, if anyone here thinks that the anti-discrimination law would be enforced with the same vigor against a muslim couple that denied to produce same-sex weddings they are behind the times. The ultraprogressives rarely spend their energy on equally (or worse) discriminating practices of non-Christians.

    Suggesting that a racial or religious group is treated differently under the law is one of oldest tropes in the Bigot's Handbook. Where's your evidence that non-Christians aren't sued if they break the relevant laws?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...ngham-41609861

    https://www.forbessolicitors.co.uk/n...n-nursery-case
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  5. #485

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    Leftists: "Let's put Christians in prison if they don't abandon their religion."
    Also leftists: "How could Christians vote for someone like Trump? I guess they don't have any principles at all. What a bunch of hypocrites."
    The fact that you think Christians, unironically, face this kind of persecution in the US highlights the problems the US has with the Religious Right.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  6. #486

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Christians, definitely the most oppressed demographic in United States.

  7. #487
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,414

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    The fact that you think Christians, unironically, face this kind of persecution in the US highlights the problems the US has with the Religious Right.
    That's exactly what the Larsens, a Christian couple, are facing in Minnesota, though. The government doesn't ask nicely, they were threatening to fine and jail the couple for not going their religion.

    The plaintiffs, Carl and Angel Larsen, are videographers who create “commercials, short films, and live-event productions.” While they work with anyone of any race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion, they will not produce videos that advance viewpoints that violate their Christian beliefs. That includes videos that “contradict biblical truth; promote sexual immorality; support the destruction of unborn children; promote racism or racial division; incite violence; degrade women; or promote any conception of marriage other than as a lifelong institution between one man and one woman.”

    The Larsens hoped to begin producing wedding videos, but Minnesota interpreted its human-rights act to require them to “produce both opposite-sex- and same-sex-wedding videos, or none at all.” Minnesota would also require them to produce videos that depicted “same- and opposite-sex weddings in an equally ‘positive’ light.” This raised the possibility that a gay couple who didn’t like the subjective quality of a video the Larsens produced for them could seek state sanctions based on alleged sexual-orientation discrimination...

    Judge David Stras’s majority opinion begins with a simple, obvious, but crucial conclusion. The Larsens’s wedding videos are a “form of speech that is entitled to First Amendment protection.” Though they don’t make feature films, their wedding videos would still clearly communicate a message in the same way that films do. As the court explained, their wedding videos would be designed to tell “healthy stories of sacrificial love and commitment between a man and a woman” and celebrate the “divinely ordained” marriage covenant.

    Moreover, the fact that the Larsens were producing videos for profit did not diminish their constitutional protection. Documentaries make money. Feature films make money. Are they not clearly protected speech? To put it plainly, Minnesota was attempting to engage in one of the most intrusive state actions on the First Amendment. It was attempting to compel the Larsens to deliver a message they opposed...

    If the court did find that nondiscrimination laws can even compel speech, it would invert the constitutional order. It would relegate the First Amendment to second-class status — less potent than a mere state regulation. Indeed, this is the argument that much of the legal Left has been making for years. They view First Amendment–based arguments against public-accommodation laws or other nondiscrimination statutes as a form of special pleading by religious Americans, a request to be exempt from the fair and just rules that govern the rest of us.

    But this is exactly backwards. The First Amendment is part of our nation’s governing document, and it recognizes the unalienable rights possessed by all Americans — not just people of faith. State and local regulators are engaged in special pleading. They’re seeking carve-outs from the supreme law of the land.

    Judge Stras understands this reality quite clearly. “Even antidiscrimination laws, as critically important as they are,” he writes “must yield to the Constitution. And as compelling as the interest in preventing discriminatory conduct may be, speech is treated differently under the First Amendment.”

    Yes. Exactly. He continues:

    “Regulating speech because it is discriminatory or offensive is not a compelling state interest, however hurtful the speech may be. It is a 'bedrock principle . . . that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.'”

  8. #488

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    That's exactly what the Larsens, a Christian couple, are facing in Minnesota, though. The government doesn't ask nicely, they were threatening to fine and jail the couple for not going their religion.
    If you view that case as anything close to the equivalent of "Let's put Christians in prison if they don't abandon their religion" from the Left, you are being delusion. Maybe on purpose, or maybe not, I am not sure. A Christian affiliated business and it's potential service to homosexuals is leagues away from throwing Christians in jail for not giving up their religion entirely.

    It does support the idea, however, that the Religious Right (particularly in the US) have a major persecution complex and are demanding a larger share of US culture than no one outside of the Religious Right wants to give back to them.
    Last edited by The spartan; August 24, 2019 at 06:25 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  9. #489
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,414

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    As far as I can tell, the Larsens and others in their position don't want a "larger share of US culture" (whatever that means), they just want to be left alone to worship God as they see fit, without being coerced into participating in activities they deem incompatible with their faith. The government is threatening to put them in jail for not publicly endorsing behaviors which go against their religion, a clear violation of their rights to free speech and freedom of religion. It's an atavistic throwback to religious conformity laws. America was founded as a place where these sorts of laws can't exist, whether to benefit Anglicans, Catholics or pagans.

    You can't say, "We have no problem with Christians, so long as they exercise their religion only behind closed doors or only publicly express the tenets of their religion which we approve of." You might believe that these violations of Christians' rights are good or necessary for one reason or another, but that doesn't change the fact that their rights are being violated, as the courts have made clear time and time again, often by large majorities with both liberal and conservative judges concurring.

  10. #490

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    As far as I can tell, the Larsens and others in their position don't want a "larger share of US culture" (whatever that means), they just want to be left alone to worship God as they see fit, without being coerced into participating in activities they deem incompatible with their faith. The government is threatening to put them in jail for not publicly endorsing behaviors which go against their religion, a clear violation of their rights to free speech and freedom of religion. It's an atavistic throwback to religious conformity laws. America was founded as a place where these sorts of laws can't exist, whether to benefit Anglicans, Catholics or pagans.
    Well no, the case isn't about their religion, it is about their status as a business. It has nothing to do with public endorsing or their desired religious practices, it is about how a business can and can't operate. Again, you are trying to depict it as a State attack on people's religion itself, which is the kind of persecution egotism that makes this complaint so obnoxious in the first place. These legal cases have had NOTHING to do, legally, with the individual's right to worship. The legal practices of such have been the same for a long time. You are the one wanting to depict it as a larger war on Christianity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    You can't say, "We have no problem with Christians, so long as they exercise their religion only behind closed doors or only publicly express the tenets of their religion which we approve of." You might believe that these violations of Christians' rights are good or necessary for one reason or another, but that doesn't change the fact that their rights are being violated, as the courts have made clear time and time again, often by large majorities with both liberal and conservative judges concurring.
    No, it's that I don't think that "Christian's rights" (you know, citizen rights) are being threatened by any recent legal activity or even rhetoric. "Destroying" the rights of Christians isn't a big popular talking about on the Left, especially given how many Leftist are Christian. These cases have only ever been about businesses, which obviously have different legal standards than individuals. The State could never charge someone with a crime because they refuse to be friends with any black people. The State can charge a company with a crime if they refuse to hire black people. There are different standards here. The fact that you want to take this issue about the status of businesses and conflate it into a targeted religious attack on the rights of all Christians is kind of ridiculous. And then to take it and, unironically, compare it with the perceived platform of "Let's put Christians in prison if they don't abandon their religion", I am sorry but that just smacks of desperation to be a victim.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  11. #491
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,414

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Well no, the case isn't about their religion, it is about their status as a business. It has nothing to do with public endorsing or their desired religious practices, it is about how a business can and can't operate. Again, you are trying to depict it as a State attack on people's religion itself, which is the kind of persecution egotism that makes this complaint so obnoxious in the first place. These legal cases have had NOTHING to do, legally, with the individual's right to worship. The legal practices of such have been the same for a long time. You are the one wanting to depict it as a larger war on Christianity.

    No, it's that I don't think that "Christian's rights" (you know, citizen rights) are being threatened by any recent legal activity or even rhetoric. "Destroying" the rights of Christians isn't a big popular talking about on the Left, especially given how many Leftist are Christian. These cases have only ever been about businesses, which obviously have different legal standards than individuals. The State could never charge someone with a crime because they refuse to be friends with any black people. The State can charge a company with a crime if they refuse to hire black people. There are different standards here. The fact that you want to take this issue about the status of businesses and conflate it into a targeted religious attack on the rights of all Christians is kind of ridiculous. And then to take it and, unironically, compare it with the perceived platform of "Let's put Christians in prison if they don't abandon their religion", I am sorry but that just smacks of desperation to be a victim.
    Nope, I don't think that analogy quite works here, since as far as I know neither the Larsens, nor any other Christian businesses involved in these types of disputes, are refusing to serve anyone. Quoting French: the Larsens "work with anyone of any race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion." Although I think they should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, that's not what these disputes are about. What the Larsens and other Christian businesses are refusing to do is participate in or otherwise endorse specific activities which go against their moral and religious beliefs, such as sexual immorality, among other things.


    A more proper analogy would be: a white man asks a professional artist to draw his portrait. She readily agrees, but then he asks her to draw a cartoon depicting black people as monkeys and says it's for a white supremacist meeting he's attending next week. She says no because racism goes against her moral/religious beliefs. In your opinion, is she engaging in discrimination? Should she be forced by the government to go against her conscience and draw the white supremacist cartoon?

  12. #492

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    I'm well known for my anti-christian views. However I'm a firm believer in equality and if christians ant to be obnoxious bigots who hate gays then they should be allowed to, provided they are not allowed to follow through with their sick religion's demand to kill anyone who is gay.

    let's not beat about the bush, this isn't about right to practice religion. That couple are allowed to read the bible, go to church, take communion. It's just christians can't go around raping, killing and burning anything that doesn't agree with them anymore.

    You either have a free market or you do not. If these people, from a business perspective, want to be dicks and alienate a certain percentage of their industry's available market share then they should be allowed to be idiots so that someone else can make a profit from their bigotry.

  13. #493

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    Nope, I don't think that analogy quite works here, since as far as I know neither the Larsens, nor any other Christian businesses involved in these types of disputes, are refusing to serve anyone. Quoting French: the Larsens "work with anyone of any race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion." Although I think they should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, that's not what these disputes are about. What the Larsens and other Christian businesses are refusing to do is participate in or otherwise endorse specific activities which go against their moral and religious beliefs, such as sexual immorality, among other things.


    A more proper analogy would be: a white man asks a professional artist to draw his portrait. She readily agrees, but then he asks her to draw a cartoon depicting black people as monkeys and says it's for a white supremacist meeting he's attending next week. She says no because racism goes against her moral/religious beliefs. In your opinion, is she engaging in discrimination? Should she be forced by the government to go against her conscience and draw the white supremacist cartoon?
    No, because white supremacist are not a protected group.

  14. #494

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    No, because white supremacist are not a protected group.
    It's actually not relevant. Legally compelled speech is almost always unconstitutional irrespective of whether it is in service of a protected group or not - hence why the district court ruling was struck down in this case.

  15. #495

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    No, it's that I don't think that "Christian's rights" (you know, citizen rights) are being threatened by any recent legal activity or even rhetoric. "Destroying" the rights of Christians isn't a big popular talking about on the Left, especially given how many Leftist are Christian.
    As someone who despises Christianity and Abrahamic religions in general, even I can tell that such a statement couldn't be further from truth.

  16. #496

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    Nope, I don't think that analogy quite works here, since as far as I know neither the Larsens, nor any other Christian businesses involved in these types of disputes, are refusing to serve anyone. Quoting French: the Larsens "work with anyone of any race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion." Although I think they should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, that's not what these disputes are about. What the Larsens and other Christian businesses are refusing to do is participate in or otherwise endorse specific activities which go against their moral and religious beliefs, such as sexual immorality, among other things.
    Nope, not about "endorsing", no one is forced to "endorse" anything, it is about if the business can refuse service for event that they personally have a problem with and how that relates to protected groups in the US. And "sexual immorality" sounds like the most pathetic of excuses; do you think a wedding cake business should be able to refuse service to a straight interracial couple getting married because they see it as sexual immorality? Is that business being unjustly forced to "endorse" miscegenation if they don't get to tell the interracial couple they don't want to make a cake for their immoral wedding?

    Again, not that this has anything to do with an individual's right to worship or throwing Christians in prison for not giving up their religion. That was your claim, no?
    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    A more proper analogy would be: a white man asks a professional artist to draw his portrait. She readily agrees, but then he asks her to draw a cartoon depicting black people as monkeys and says it's for a white supremacist meeting he's attending next week. She says no because racism goes against her moral/religious beliefs. In your opinion, is she engaging in discrimination? Should she be forced by the government to go against her conscience and draw the white supremacist cartoon?
    Legally? No, racists aren't a protected group in the US. This "more proper" analogy didn't seem to go far.

    Another, more proper, analogy would be if a wedding cake business refused to make a cake for a mentally handicapped couple and their wedding (another protected group) because the business owner believes they would be "endorsing" the reproduction of handicapped people (and they are a Eugenicist or something). That wouldn't fly with the State.

    But, again, we are still talking miles away from the point about how Leftists want to throw Christians in jail if they don't give up their religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    As someone who despises Christianity and Abrahamic religions in general, even I can tell that such a statement couldn't be further from truth.
    Yeah? You got polling data on the platform "destroy Christianity" among Democrat voters? Or is this just your personal analysis from reading twitter?
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  17. #497
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,414

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Nope, not about "endorsing", no one is forced to "endorse" anything, it is about if the business can refuse service for event that they personally have a problem with and how that relates to protected groups in the US.
    You keep conflating two very different things; none of these cases are about refusing service to anyone based on any characteristic, they're about refusing to endorse or participate in specific activities that violate the business owners' moral and religious beliefs. It's the difference between a restaurant refusing service to a white guy and refusing to cater a KKK rally.

    In the Larsens' case:

    While they work with anyone of any race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion, they will not produce videos that advance viewpoints that violate their Christian beliefs. ... The Larsens hoped to begin producing wedding videos, but Minnesota interpreted its human-rights act to require them to “produce both opposite-sex- and same-sex-wedding videos, or none at all.” Minnesota would also require them to produce videos that depicted “same- and opposite-sex weddings in an equally ‘positive’ light.”
    Minnesota is seeking to compel the Larsens to make speech that depicts sexual immorality in a positive light, and threatening them with steep fines and jail time if they don't comply. That's beyond simple nondiscrimination, it's compelled speech, which the court has ruled violates the Constitution. The government has no right to designate a particular group a "protected group", and then compel people to make speech in support of that group. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land; if LGBT activists want to establish homosexuality as a state religion and force people to conform, they'll need to amend the Constitution first.

    Quoting French's article again:

    Moreover, the fact that the Larsens were producing videos for profit did not diminish their constitutional protection. Documentaries make money. Feature films make money. Are they not clearly protected speech? To put it plainly, Minnesota was attempting to engage in one of the most intrusive state actions on the First Amendment. It was attempting to compel the Larsens to deliver a message they opposed...

    If the court did find that nondiscrimination laws can even compel speech, it would invert the constitutional order. It would relegate the First Amendment to second-class status — less potent than a mere state regulation. Indeed, this is the argument that much of the legal Left has been making for years. They view First Amendment–based arguments against public-accommodation laws or other nondiscrimination statutes as a form of special pleading by religious Americans, a request to be exempt from the fair and just rules that govern the rest of us.

    But this is exactly backwards. The First Amendment is part of our nation’s governing document, and it recognizes the unalienable rights possessed by all Americans — not just people of faith. State and local regulators are engaged in special pleading. They’re seeking carve-outs from the supreme law of the land.
    And "sexual immorality" sounds like the most pathetic of excuses; do you think a wedding cake business should be able to refuse service to a straight interracial couple getting married because they see it as sexual immorality? Is that business being unjustly forced to "endorse" miscegenation if they don't get to tell the interracial couple they don't want to make a cake for their immoral wedding?
    Yeah. The government has no right to compel people to endorse any viewpoint, whether it's Catholicism, gay marriage, miscegenation, the Vietnam war, or whatever.

    But, again, we are still talking miles away from the point about how Leftists want to throw Christians in jail if they don't give up their religion.
    If my choice of words is what you have a problem with, allow me to clarify. It's clear that the Larsens adhere to a biblical/orthodox understanding of sexual morality, which is an integral part of their faith. Giving them a choice between bankruptcy/jail or publicly endorsing viewpoints that go against their religion is what I meant by "putting them in prison for not abandoning their religion."

    In theory, they could avoid prosecution if they keep their religious beliefs to themselves, in much the same way that an atheist could avoid imprisonment in Saudi Arabia if he doesn't publicly declare his atheism, an act which would be considered offensive by the Muslim community, a legally-recognized "protected group."

    But if liberty means anything, it means having the right to be who you are and say what you think both in public and in private. Demanding that business owners surrender their rights to free speech and freedom of religion has no place in America. America is all about live and let live. If someone can't stand to see people express their Christian views in public, well, he can just move to France or whatever. There's literally 200+ countries that don't have the right to free speech. The options are endless, really.

    Anyway, I don't have much time for discussions anymore. These days I usually just make a quick comment and leave, so...
    Last edited by Prodromos; August 26, 2019 at 03:16 AM.

  18. #498

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    https://news.yahoo.com/federal-court...223229105.html

    A federal court in USA spanked the naughty bottom of Minnesota ultraprogressives that had a rule in their anti-discrimination laws that would force a couple to produce videos contrary to their Christian beliefs. The couple didn't have a problem working with gay people, they just didn't want to produce videos of gay weddings as it is their right. And the court upheld that right because frankly, while anti-discrimination laws are sadly needed, that part of "we don't give a crap about your beliefs, you will do it" is hot garbage, not anti-discrimination.

    Now, if anyone here thinks that the anti-discrimination law would be enforced with the same vigor against a muslim couple that denied to produce same-sex weddings they are behind the times. The ultraprogressives rarely spend their energy on equally (or worse) discriminating practices of non-Christians.
    Could it be that there are hell of a lot more Christians in USA? Also, do you believe it is within their rights to deny service to a gay couple?
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  19. #499

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Could it be that there are hell of a lot more Christians in USA? Also, do you believe it is within their rights to deny service to a gay couple?
    Didn't you argue in a neighboring thread that big tech should be allowed to arbitrarily deny platform to anyone they like?

  20. #500

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    You keep conflating two very different things; none of these cases are about refusing service to anyone based on any characteristic, they're about refusing to endorse or participate in specific activities that violate the business owners' moral and religious beliefs. It's the difference between a restaurant refusing service to a white guy and refusing to cater a KKK rally.
    Well no, it is comparable to a business refusing to cater an interracial marriage, as I previously said. That's way closer to a gay marriage than a KKK rally (and refers to another protected group). Again, do you think a business should be able to refuse service to an interracial wedding because they believe it is immoral? At least answer me that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    Minnesota is seeking to compel the Larsens to make speech that depicts sexual immorality in a positive light, and threatening them with steep fines and jail time if they don't comply. That's beyond simple nondiscrimination, it's compelled speech, which the court has ruled violates the Constitution. The government has no right to designate a particular group a "protected group", and then compel people to make speech in support of that group. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land; if LGBT activists want to establish homosexuality as a state religion and force people to conform, they'll need to amend the Constitution first.
    It's about as compelled speech as a business being penalized for refusing to cater to black people and their weddings, or an interracial wedding. The governments right to establish protected groups is pretty clear (it's been about 50 years), so you are just wrong there.

    What you (or a business) consider "sexual immorality" or an attempt to establish "homosexuality as a state religion" (wtf?) is irrelevant. It is super creepy, though, thanks for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    Yeah. The government has no right to compel people to endorse any viewpoint, whether it's Catholicism, gay marriage, miscegenation, the Vietnam war, or whatever.
    The problem you and I seem to be having here is in defining what is "compelled endorsement" or not. Providing a business service to people is usually not considered an implicit endorsement. Imagine a landlord renting out a house and a gay couple come to apply as residents. Under current law, the landlord can't legally deny them because they are a gay couple, and we don't usually consider that fact as an example of the government forcing the landlord to endorse gay cohabitation. Even considering the gay couple would be doing all kinds of gay things on the property the landlord owns, the landlord can't deny service on the basis of protected classes, and a complaint of "you are making me endorse their gay lifestyle!" by penalizing the landlord if he tried to deny them would probably not get far in court.

    For that matter, do you think landlords should be able to not rent to gay individuals because they would feel like they are being compelled to endorse homosexuality otherwise?
    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    If my choice of words is what you have a problem with, allow me to clarify. It's clear that the Larsens adhere to a biblical/orthodox understanding of sexual morality, which is an integral part of their faith. Giving them a choice between bankruptcy/jail or publicly endorsing viewpoints that go against their religion is what I meant by "putting them in prison for not abandoning their religion."
    Religious reasons for not providing service because X is "integral part of their faith" is typically a weak argument. If you are going to throw "endorsement" on any business interaction, then anybody could use any religion to deny any particular group of people they don't want. Quakers could deny US Army veterans service, for example. Atheists could deny service for Christian events, which I am sure you are totally ok with. Otherwise, I would agree with you on a more traditional interpretation of "endorsement"; businesses should definitely not be compelled by the government to tweet out how much they support gay marriage. I just can't get behind this idea that providing the service your business does is necessarily an endorsement of whatever group you are providing the service for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    In theory, they could avoid prosecution if they keep their religious beliefs to themselves, in much the same way that an atheist could avoid imprisonment in Saudi Arabia if he doesn't publicly declare his atheism, an act which would be considered offensive by the Muslim community, a legally-recognized "protected group."

    But if liberty means anything, it means having the right to be who you are and say what you think both in public and in private. Demanding that business owners surrender their rights to free speech and freedom of religion has no place in America. America is all about live and let live. If someone can't stand to see people express their Christian views in public, well, he can just move to France or whatever. There's literally 200+ countries that don't have the right to free speech. The options are endless, really.
    I mean, if you don't believe protected groups should even be a thing, that's your opinion. But America, as a nation, has established them and holds that they can exist without the abolition of free speech and religion. Given that Christians are protected as one of the groups, I would caution you at pulling at this thread, lest you have non-Christian business owners refuse service to immoral Christians who mutilate the genitals of their male children.
    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    Anyway, I don't have much time for discussions anymore. These days I usually just make a quick comment and leave, so...
    That's your prerogative. My main point in addressing your post was that I thought it was clear you are being hugely hyperbolic in saying that the American Left want to throw Christians in jail unless they renounce their religion. American isn't even close to that and I think you know that. Which leads me to wonder if you are acting in good faith here or are trying to dishonestly over represent the amount of persecution Christians face in the US.
    Last edited by The spartan; August 31, 2019 at 06:31 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •