[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Maru

Imo, if we just keep up with the -phobics, -ist labels... that will lead to the opposite intended result come election time. Those attitudes are already starting to backfire and will lead to those folk who act with indignance to find themselves further isolated...

There are all kinds of worldviews in the world we share with other ppl and we can focus on only just one, and probably inconvenient to have to bother with anyone elses, but I feel like that is living with head in the clouds and only harmful to that person /w a narrow view. Just because we see it our way doesn't mean there aren't other ppl who see another... bigotry to me is being spiteful/venomous towards others when we refuse to accept ppl who outside our own culture. The business owner was following his deeply held religious beliefs... and there is no indication his purpose was malicious here. Just to reiterate, but to try to force our own worldviews will only lead to activists further isolating themselves... will only make them miserable as ppl will eventually move on.

I'm fine w the owner kicking out Sanders. We share the world with other ppl, it is not all about us... to live in a world where we have to only accomodate to one group though is not only an unrealistic way of thinking, but is a one-sided worldview. Anyway, the more I hear this rhetoric, the less I care... eventually just won't bother with it anymore to assist those movements which have become so self-referential. It is just not worth it, pleasing those folk anymore. I believe in treating people with humility and tolerance.. not venomous rhetoric.

I really dislike this thought process. It downplays the struggles of people who aren't the majority by making out that we must appease the majority and that's wrong.

What you are endorsing is appeasement.

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I really dislike this thought process. It downplays the struggles of people who aren't the majority by making out that we must appease the majority and that's wrong.

What you are endorsing is appeasement.

Appeasement to you maybe. However, for me I consider that examples of compromise and respect for another person's cultural practices. Two very different ways of grounding and engineering a perspective. Not only was their position there domineering, but it is maliscious and cruel to force other people to trash their private practices in order to force their own way. Life is all about give and take. We can't just take take take anytime we feel disrespected or like we're entitled something. That's how we've come to this point in our culture, is this lack of humility on both ends, which has led us to this point where we've politicized every issue rather than finding new ways to not only tolerate the other, but build a bridge.

This couple could have gone to a different baker. It would have shown some real skin/maturity for them to have taken the high road here, but they expect empathy without giving any in return for the position they put the baker in. Securalism may be on the rise, but those who adhere devoutly to their their religious vocation can't simply drop practices willy-nilly. We can't separate the action of the baker from his private practice... unfortunately, it doesn't work like that, any religion. Simply put, this is a regressive move for our society when there's little to no room for respecting the private practices of other people's cultures/way-of-life. Whatever respect they may claim to have otherwise is pretty much conditional. We will find no agreement here as I see this as simple bigotry disguised as a pursuit for "tolerance"/justice...

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Maru

Appeasement to you maybe. However, for me I consider that examples of compromise and respect for another person's cultural practices. Two very different ways of grounding and engineering a perspective. Not only was their position there domineering, but it is maliscious and cruel to force other people to trash their private practices in order to force their own way. Life is all about give and take. We can't just take take take anytime we feel disrespected or like we're entitled something. That's how we've come to this point in our culture, is this lack of humility on both ends, which has led us to this point where we've politicized every issue rather than finding new ways to not only tolerate the other, but build a bridge.

This couple could have gone to a different baker. It would have shown some real skin/maturity for them to have taken the high road here, but they expect empathy without giving any in return for the position they put the baker in. Securalism may be on the rise, but those who adhere devoutly to their their religious vocation can't simply drop practices willy-nilly. We can't separate the action of the baker from his private practice... unfortunately, it doesn't work like that, any religion. Simply put, this is a regressive move for our society when there's little to no room for respecting the private practices of other people's cultures/way-of-life. Whatever respect they may claim to have otherwise is pretty much conditional. We will find no agreement here as I see this as simple bigotry disguised as a pursuit for "tolerance"/justice...

AWESOME.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Maru

Appeasement to you maybe. However, for me I consider that examples of compromise and respect for another person's cultural practices. Two very different ways of grounding and engineering a perspective. Not only was their position there domineering, but it is maliscious and cruel to force other people to trash their private practices in order to force their own way. Life is all about give and take. We can't just take take take anytime we feel disrespected or like we're entitled something. That's how we've come to this point in our culture, is this lack of humility on both ends, which has led us to this point where we've politicized every issue rather than finding new ways to not only tolerate the other, but build a bridge.

This couple could have gone to a different baker. It would have shown some real skin/maturity for them to have taken the high road here, but they expect empathy without giving any in return for the position they put the baker in. Securalism may be on the rise, but those who adhere devoutly to their their religious vocation can't simply drop practices willy-nilly. We can't separate the action of the baker from his private practice... unfortunately, it doesn't work like that, any religion. Simply put, this is a regressive move for our society when there's little to no room for respecting the private practices of other people's cultures/way-of-life. Whatever respect they may claim to have otherwise is pretty much conditional. We will find no agreement here as I see this as simple bigotry disguised as a pursuit for "tolerance"/justice...

Then we should make it clear in constitution or wherever that religion trumps equality and be done with it.
Would you defend if someone had a religion that made him discriminate racially? And refuse to bake cakes for black people? Would you deploy the same arguments how those seeking equality disturb, distress and don't care?
Also, why do you say "there's little to no room for respecting the private practices of other people's cultures/way of life"?

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Then we should make it clear in constitution or wherever that religion trumps equality and be done with it.
Would you defend if someone had a religion that made him discriminate racially? And refuse to bake cakes for black people? Would you deploy the same arguments how those seeking equality disturb, distress and don't care?
Also, why do you say "there's little to no room for respecting the private practices of other people's cultures/way of life"?

Religion is protected in the Constitution, that's why they had won the ruling. Escaping religious persecution has always been a huge factor for people immigrating to the States.

Race itself is a protected class so no, that wouldn't be expected to fly. Eventually sexual preference will make itself into there as well. The baker though didn't discriminate against them on the basis of their homosexuality. The disagreement was that their practice (same-sex marriage) came into conflict with his practices, so he couldn't play a part in that ritual. It would be like if someone walked in and wanted food for a cake featuring a celebrating eating and devouring a specific animal and the baker would maybe have to decline because the animal was a spiritual God, etc. The concept of Man+Woman is a sacred union in Christianity and marriage is considered a religious practice, just as sex is considered a sacred practice. That's why we don't really see any orthodox Christians working at adult sex shops. (Editx9000)

Anyway, it would be difficult to find a reasonably-sized religion that discriminates on the basis of race. Just because, how else would that religion thrive if it's narrowing that much it's potential pool of worshipers... It would be a failed experiment at best...

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Maru

Religion is protected in the Constitution, that's why they had won the ruling. Escaping religious persecution has always been a huge factor for people immigrating to the States.

Race itself is a protected class so no, that wouldn't be expected to fly. Eventually sexual preference will make itself into there as well. The baker though didn't discriminate against them on the basis of their homosexuality. The disagreement was that their practice (same-sex marriage) came into conflict with his practices, so he couldn't play a part in that ritual. It would be like if someone walked in and wanted food for a cake featuring a celebrating eating and devouring a specific animal and the baker would maybe have to decline because the animal was a spiritual God, etc. The concept of Man+Woman is a sacred union in Christianity and marriage is considered a religious practice, just as sex is considered a sacred practice. That's why we don't really see any orthodox Christians working at adult sex shops. (Editx9000)

Anyway, it would be difficult to find a reasonably-sized religion that discriminates on the basis of race. Just because, how else would that religion thrive if it's narrowing that much it's potential pool of worshipers... It would be a failed experiment at best...

Race only became a protected class fairly recently, and the same bible you say that sanctifies marriage for Christians is the same one that provided the go-ahead for the Christian slave owners. Don't you find it curious, that there are so many laws and rules in the bible regarding how to live, and yet it's only a couple of the discriminatory beliefs that line up with their own prejudices that they really cry foul at? There's no historical shame in that either; most of modern history has seen homosexuals and different races be treated appallingly by all of our ancestors, regardless of what god they did/didn't believe in. Let's be honest here, Christians defending this issue aren't doing it because Christianity enforces it, they're using Christianity as a shield to protect their own bigotry.

Marriage isn't a commandment, and yet bearing false witness is. Why do American Christians have no problem with lying and protecting liars, but yet are too offended to make a cake?

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Race only became a protected class fairly recently, and the same bible you say that sanctifies marriage for Christians is the same one that provided the go-ahead for the Christian slave owners. Don't you find it curious, that there are so many laws and rules in the bible regarding how to live, and yet it's only a couple of the discriminatory beliefs that line up with their own prejudices that they really cry foul at? There's no historical shame in that either; most of modern history has seen homosexuals and different races be treated appallingly by all of our ancestors, regardless of what god they did/didn't believe in. Let's be honest here, Christians defending this issue aren't doing it because Christianity enforces it, they're using Christianity as a shield to protect their own bigotry.

Marriage isn't a commandment, and yet bearing false witness is. Why do American Christians have no problem with lying and protecting liars, but yet are too offended to make a cake?

There we're focusing on the contrast in beliefs, which fall under Freedom of Speech. What I am talking about here is a conflict in practices. i.e. a marriage ceremony

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Maru

There we're focusing on the contrast in beliefs, which fall under Freedom of Speech. What I am talking about here is a conflict in practices. i.e. a marriage ceremony

That doesn't make any sense to me. I've read that sentence 5 times, and I still can't decipher what you mean. Any chance you can elaborate for a dumb plebe like me?

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Race only became a protected class fairly recently, and the same bible you say that sanctifies marriage for Christians is the same one that provided the go-ahead for the Christian slave owners. Don't you find it curious, that there are so many laws and rules in the bible regarding how to live, and yet it's only a couple of the discriminatory beliefs that line up with their own prejudices that they really cry foul at? There's no historical shame in that either; most of modern history has seen homosexuals and different races be treated appallingly by all of our ancestors, regardless of what god they did/didn't believe in. Let's be honest here, Christians defending this issue aren't doing it because Christianity enforces it, they're using Christianity as a shield to protect their own bigotry.

Marriage isn't a commandment, and yet bearing false witness is. Why do American Christians have no problem with lying and protecting liars, but yet are too offended to make a cake?

excellent stuff
religious freedom is just something they hide behind; they discard Christian teachings if it doesn't suit them (love thy neighbour and others)
Most Christian denominations for example are appalled at war-mongering and naked greed and inequality of Anglo-American model of capitalism. Do so-called conservative Christians pay any attention to that? Nah.
But homosexuals? Yeah, that's the danger worth focusing on.
The whole idiotic battle against gay marriage, I mean, anybody with any sense would see that gay marriage promotes social stability by binding 5% minority into stable relationships in law. Why would any conservative have a problem with that? It's good for individuals, it's good for society and the state. But no, let's kick up the fuss because they're different, they're not us. How ****ing short-sighted is that?

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

excellent stuff
religious freedom is just something they hide behind; they discard Christian teachings if it doesn't suit them (love thy neighbour and others)
Most Christian denominations for example are appalled at war-mongering and naked greed and inequality of Anglo-American model of capitalism. Do so-called conservative Christians pay any attention to that? Nah.
But homosexuals? Yeah, that's the danger worth focusing on.
The whole idiotic battle against gay marriage, I mean, anybody with any sense would see that gay marriage promotes social stability by binding 5% minority into stable relationships in law. Why would any conservative have a problem with that? It's good for individuals, it's good for society and the state. But no, let's kick up the fuss because they're different, they're not us. How ****ing short-sighted is that?

I think in the US, our hardest lines from the past have gradually worked themselves over since those years. Someone who is religious is now more capable of accepting that other people may choose to live differently than in years past. Even when t is deep contrast with their beliefs. I don't think that's necessarily religion changing itself, so much, as our culture has shifted quite a bit thanks to the issue of diversity. People are now have to accept that this is the world they buy into if they support the freedoms they do have, as they have to accept others the right to live that as well. Anyway, I overwhelmingly agree the civil rights era made us a better society, but it also made us more open (see: 60's) of other people who choose to live differently... this newest strain of authorianism surging from the extreme left (and right) is the opposite of that growth in my opinion.

Personally, while I support these freedoms remaining intact, I have major issues with Republicans that govern from the pulpit and base most of their support and decision-making on religion. In the last primary, my candidate went into a run-off. The other was a Christian pastor. Anyway, my candidate was open to allowing room for criticism of modern Christianity and showing tolerance, including their stances on gay marriage, but these evangelical groups were peeved off and started to launch smear campaigns against him both online and through paper mail... my candidate ended up winning the primary, so he will be on the Republican ballot come November.

I don't trust these types of evangelicals, but my issue is not their beliefs, my issue is that these are government officials and they should be representing all groups under them, not just those folk who share their religious denomination. Anyway, I can feel one way about our religious freedoms and still have many problems with it. I don't fault others for having their own pickle with religion.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Maru

Appeasement to you maybe. However, for me I consider that examples of compromise and respect for another person's cultural practices. Two very different ways of grounding and engineering a perspective. Not only was their position there domineering, but it is maliscious and cruel to force other people to trash their private practices in order to force their own way. Life is all about give and take. We can't just take take take anytime we feel disrespected or like we're entitled something. That's how we've come to this point in our culture, is this lack of humility on both ends, which has led us to this point where we've politicized every issue rather than finding new ways to not only tolerate the other, but build a bridge.

This couple could have gone to a different baker. It would have shown some real skin/maturity for them to have taken the high road here, but they expect empathy without giving any in return for the position they put the baker in. Securalism may be on the rise, but those who adhere devoutly to their their religious vocation can't simply drop practices willy-nilly. We can't separate the action of the baker from his private practice... unfortunately, it doesn't work like that, any religion. Simply put, this is a regressive move for our society when there's little to no room for respecting the private practices of other people's cultures/way-of-life. Whatever respect they may claim to have otherwise is pretty much conditional. We will find no agreement here as I see this as simple bigotry disguised as a pursuit for "tolerance"/justice...

Youtube video

Why is it the minority that always has to bend their will to make sure the majority remain comfortable? Why couldn't black people just be happy to use different water fountains, and was their challenge to the hierarchy also bigotry disguised as a pursuit for tolerance, in your language?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Maru

Appeasement to you maybe. However, for me I consider that examples of compromise and respect for another person's cultural practices. Two very different ways of grounding and engineering a perspective. Not only was their position there domineering, but it is maliscious and cruel to force other people to trash their private practices in order to force their own way. Life is all about give and take. We can't just take take take anytime we feel disrespected or like we're entitled something. That's how we've come to this point in our culture, is this lack of humility on both ends, which has led us to this point where we've politicized every issue rather than finding new ways to not only tolerate the other, but build a bridge.

This couple could have gone to a different baker. It would have shown some real skin/maturity for them to have taken the high road here, but they expect empathy without giving any in return for the position they put the baker in. Securalism may be on the rise, but those who adhere devoutly to their their religious vocation can't simply drop practices willy-nilly. We can't separate the action of the baker from his private practice... unfortunately, it doesn't work like that, any religion. Simply put, this is a regressive move for our society when there's little to no room for respecting the private practices of other people's cultures/way-of-life. Whatever respect they may claim to have otherwise is pretty much conditional. We will find no agreement here as I see this as simple bigotry disguised as a pursuit for "tolerance"/justice...

Nah, it's appeasement.