Jim Crow isn't dead

[mrswdk]

Like, the Lord gave us his only bigotten son?

[crispybits]

Interestingly, the bigots I was referring to in my post a couple above this one were atheists who are bigoted towards religious people. Do you find that sort of religious bigotry a curious mental state?

I didn't say persecuted. I said bigoted. Jackass.

You said that atheists were being bigoted towards religious people. It's not exactly a huge leap of logic to reword that statement maintaining exactly the same meaning to say that religious people are being persecuted by atheists.

And just for the record, I don't know of very many atheists who show disrespect or intolerance of the religious people themselves. What most atheists show disrespect and intolerance for is the religious concepts or ideas. I can't think of a single time in the history of the western world where someone has tried to pass a law saying that nobody is allowed to have any faith in God. Thought policing is pretty much exclusively the domain of the religious.

(inb4 new mexico forced a wedding cake maker to go against their religious principles for a gay wedding - that wasn't an atheist imposing a no-faith sanction, that was a gay couple suing for equality of service when they were illegally discriminated against because of a protected characteristic - the proactive/reactive distinction is key)

Basically, if you wanna live in a deluded state you go for it - the reaction you (in general, not you personally) get is when you try to impose the rules of your deluded state upon everyone else. Is it a coincidence that the rise of "militant athesm" almost perfectly correlates with the rise of the religious right trying to impose their religious rules upon the entire population regardless of anyone else's religious, spiritual or ethical beliefs?

[mrswdk]

You said that atheists were being bigoted towards religious people. It's not exactly a huge leap of logic to reword that statement maintaining exactly the same meaning to say that religious people are being persecuted by atheists.

And they say the art of logic is dead.

And just for the record, I don't know of very many atheists who show disrespect or intolerance of the religious people themselves. What most atheists show disrespect and intolerance for is the religious concepts or ideas.

Interesting imaginary distinction you have managed to create there. Oh well, at least your particular brand of open intolerance is definitely not 'thought policing'.

[crispybits]

Quick answer - the governor gets to CHOOSE whether or not to support same-sex marriage. The gay couple don't get to CHOOSE whether they are attracted to members of the same sex.

What is the evidence that gay people are born that way? Are you saying it can't be learned?

And the issue isn't about attraction, it's about being an intolerant bigot and fascism. The hairdresser decided because someone doesn't think the same way about an issue, he can refuse to do his job and dish out punishment to anyone who disagrees. Andy and the hairdresser are mad they didn't get their Jim Crow laws through that would enforce their values on everyone else.

Tell me PS about that watershed moment in your life when you sat down and thought to yourself "shall I prefer men or women sexually for the rest of my life?" I certainly didn't have one - women have always given me a boner ever since I got old enough to get boners. It's just the way I'm wired. Why would you assume it's any different with gay people?

The only value gay people have sued for is equality of treatment. Gay people aren't imposing gayness on anyone else like the religious are trying to impose their religion on everyone else by refusing to acknowledge gay relationships in the law. The new mexico cake maker wasn't forced to be gay, they were forced to treat gay couples the same as straight couples. Can you truly not see the distinction between imposing religious rules (is happening), imposing gayness (isnt happening) - those two are identical standards that affect how someone lives their own life even when nobody else is around - and then the third option of imposing equality of treatment (is happening, slowly) which doesn't change the way anyone lives their own lives, only how they treat other people?

[crispybits]

Interesting imaginary distinction you have managed to create there. Oh well, at least your particular brand of open intolerance is definitely not 'thought policing'.

Criticism of an idea or concept is not the same thing as imposing an idea or concept on those who disagree by rule of law or by threats of eternal damnation. And criticism of an idea or concept is not the same as criticism of all who currently subscribe to that idea or concept. If you said "Red Sox are the best team!" I could criticise that by pointing out statistically how they're most definitely not the best team, and none of the aruments I might make about the Red Sox would say a single thing about you personally.

Or, if that wasn't the weakest straw man ever and you actually had a valid point, would you care to point to anywhere in the western world where a law has been proposed banning people from believing in God?

Let me try to put this another way - ever heard the expression "your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose"? As in you are free to do or think or believe or speak out for anything you like that only affects you. Nobody is trying to take away that freedom. What the pro-equality side of this debate is saying is that "your freedom to act on those beliefs ends when it negatively affects a single other person without their consent".

[mrswdk]

would you care to point to anywhere in the western world where a law has been proposed banning people from believing in God?

Would you first care to point to anywhere in the western world where a law has been proposed banning people from being an atheist? Otherwise we risk running round and round in circles discussing a big, fat straw man.

Criticism of an idea or concept is not the same thing as imposing an idea or concept on those who disagree by rule of law or by threats of eternal damnation.

Come on, dude. I'm guessing you're over 18, which makes you an adult. Can't you just ignore the people who think that gays are doomed to an eternity in hell? What does it matter to you what they think?

Sure, if you were a homosexual Ugandan facing the possibility of being sent to prison or getting lynched because of your sexuality then I could understand your desire to go out onto the streets (or internet forums) and change minds, but you're not. You're living in a country where being gay is perfectly legal (and gay people are winning more and more legal rights), and you just have a stick up your ass about the fact that a very small minority of your countrymen hold old-fashioned attitudes.

[thegreekdog]

Interestingly, the bigots I was referring to in my post a couple above this one were atheists who are bigoted towards religious people. Do you find that sort of religious bigotry a curious mental state?

I didn't say persecuted. I said bigoted. Jackass.

You said that atheists were being bigoted towards religious people. It's not exactly a huge leap of logic to reword that statement maintaining exactly the same meaning to say that religious people are being persecuted by atheists.

And just for the record, I don't know of very many atheists who show disrespect or intolerance of the religious people themselves. What most atheists show disrespect and intolerance for is the religious concepts or ideas. I can't think of a single time in the history of the western world where someone has tried to pass a law saying that nobody is allowed to have any faith in God. Thought policing is pretty much exclusively the domain of the religious.

(inb4 new mexico forced a wedding cake maker to go against their religious principles for a gay wedding - that wasn't an atheist imposing a no-faith sanction, that was a gay couple suing for equality of service when they were illegally discriminated against because of a protected characteristic - the proactive/reactive distinction is key)

Basically, if you wanna live in a deluded state you go for it - the reaction you (in general, not you personally) get is when you try to impose the rules of your deluded state upon everyone else. Is it a coincidence that the rise of "militant athesm" almost perfectly correlates with the rise of the religious right trying to impose their religious rules upon the entire population regardless of anyone else's religious, spiritual or ethical beliefs?

Again, I didn't say persecuted, I said bigoted. This is not hard to understand. The definition of "bigotry" is "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, beliee, or opinion that differs from one's own." We've seen bigoted folks in this very forum rail against religious people (not religions themselves). I can appreciate what you're trying to argue here, but it's simply misguided. I am certainly not suggesting religious people are persecuted. I'm telling you that there are bigots who are bigoted with respect to religious people. And, of the bigoted people I know, religious bigots make up the largest percentage, by far. I was at a wedding last weekend where one of my best friends (an atheist and bigot) made snarky comments throughout the Jewish ceremony. He thinks religious people are idiots simply because they believe in a religion. Is that bigoted? Yes. Do I feel persecuted? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.

Anyway, if you want to have a discussion on atheism vs. religion, I'm not the guy for you. Create another thread and have that argument with someone else. But please don't put words in my mouth (or, more accurately, don't put typed words in my post). Every post you made since I brought up religion dealt with persecution, not bigotry. If you want to try to argue that atheists who have an intolerance of religious beliefs and people aren't bigots, find a different definition of bigotry I guess.

Let me provide another example. There are black people who hate white people (since we're using bigotry to include a racial context). Does that mean black people are persecuting whites? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. If I had said I know black people who are bigoted towards whites, would your immediate reaction have been to accuse me of bringing up a persecution complex? I certainly hope not.

Would it make you feel any better if I told you that a large percentage of the religious bigots I know are people that are bigoted with respect to atheists? My friend above is bigoted towards religious people. My mother is bigoted towards atheism and atheists. Does that make you feel better?

[oVo]

The intolerance of the religious and atheist groups towards each other just seems like a waste of energy to me. Dumb is as dumb does... nobody's right, if everybody's wrong. Live and let live. Christians under attack? Give me a fucking break... you can pray (and exercise your beliefs or lack of them) anywhere and anytime, you just can't impose those actions on anyone else.

#5 - A loss of perspective on what is and is not important.

[crispybits]

I'm not trying to have an atheism vs religion discussion TGD - you were the one that brought atheism into this by calling us bigots to try and somehow defend pro-religious homophobia.

I'm saying that you can have as much religious freedom over YOUR OWN life as you want. But critically you don't get to choose how much religious freedom others have in theirs, more specifically you don't get to enforce your religious rules on the population at large regardless of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). It's that simple. That's not atheist vs religion, that's freedom vs the kind of christian theocracy a large section of right wing america would seemingly love to impose...

(Again, using "you" in the general sense not in the personal sense)

Ovo I agree - I get riled only when some religious loon starts spouting off about something being against their religion and therefore it should be banned, or tries to spread wilful disinformation. If the religious lot just kept themselves to themselves and let everyone get on with living their own lives their own way, and stopped telling lies about what science says and does in an attempt to discredit the fact that their fairy-tales have been shown to be inconsistent, illogical and plain old impossible, then you'd not hear a word from me about religion except that I personally think it's a massive waste of time, money and energy.

[mrswdk]

Executive summary: crispybits needs a hug.

[crispybits]

Executive summary: crispybits needs a hug.

Bravo - good point well made - I shall consider myself thoroughly embarrassed that I ever considered having a reasoned discussion with you - why didn't you just say that in the first place....

Oh I did forget to respond to one thing...

Would you first care to point to anywhere in the western world where a law has been proposed banning people from being an atheist? Otherwise we risk running round and round in circles discussing a big, fat straw man.

Nope, you fail there too. I asked whether the single reigious tenet of atheism (don't believe) had ever been proposed in legislation. The counterpoint to that is not a ban on atheism, it's finding a single example of a religious tenet taken from any religious doctrine being imposed against the wishes of a non-believing section of the population, with clear religious intent and/or justification. I'd say the AZ law pretty much ticks every box there.

That question is on topic. Calling atheists bigots or confusing atheism with liberalism isn't on topic. AZ lawmakers have blatantly used religious justification and intent to create a law that would apply to the religious and non-religious alike. This seems to me to be against the spirit of "the wall of separation beetween church and state" (to quote Jefferson). Like I said, you have the right to hold any religious belief you want, just as I do, but you do not have the right to impose any part of that religious belief on anyone else against their will. Religion should be a concious decision, voluntarily entered into, otherwise what's the point? If God gave us free will to choose or not choose him, then forcing anyone to obey him or believe in him or follow his rule swithout their consent is removing a God-given right no?

[thegreekdog]

I'm not trying to have an atheism vs religion discussion TGD - you were the one that brought atheism into this by calling us bigots to try and somehow defend pro-religious homophobia.

First, I brought up religious bigotry, not atheism. And you are a bigot if you're an atheist. You have no tolerance for religion. That's okay. No one cares.

Second, I'm not bringing it up to defend pro-religious homophobia. I think if you read my posts in this thread (nevermind the other gay marriage threads), I'm in support for gay marriage (I'm a live and let live kind of religious person) and think these laws are stupid (which is why Phatscotty is attacking me, incidentally). Go back and read my posts and stop being a jackass.

I'm saying that you can have as much religious freedom over YOUR OWN life as you want. But critically you don't get to choose how much religious freedom others have in theirs, more specifically you don't get to enforce your religious rules on the population at large regardless of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). It's that simple. That's not atheist vs religion, that's freedom vs the kind of christian theocracy a large section of right wing america would seemingly love to impose...

Correct. And that's the difference between "persecution" and "bigotry." There is no persecution of religious people in the United States. There is bigotry. There is no persecution of atheists in the United States. There is bigotry. This is not hard to understand.

Ovo I agree - I get riled only when some religious loon starts spouting off about something being against their religion and therefore it should be banned, or tries to spread wilful disinformation. If the religious lot just kept themselves to themselves and let everyone get on with living their own lives their own way, and stopped telling lies about what science says and does in an attempt to discredit the fact that their fairy-tales have been shown to be inconsistent, illogical and plain old impossible, then you'd not hear a word from me about religion except that I personally think it's a massive waste of time, money and energy.

And I agree with this too (how about that). But read the red again and tell me why you aren't intolerant of religion? And I guess I need to type this so I don't confuse you... I don't feel persecuted from your post.

Trust me, I don't respect you any less or think you're less of a person because you are bigoted to religious people. I actually respect you less because you think I have some persecution complex about religion when none of my posts even touch on the subject. That offends me more than anything else you've typed.

[BigBallinStalin]

Interesting imaginary distinction you have managed to create there. Oh well, at least your particular brand of open intolerance is definitely not 'thought policing'.

Let me try to put this another way - ever heard the expression "your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose"? As in you are free to do or think or believe or speak out for anything you like that only affects you. Nobody is trying to take away that freedom. What the pro-equality side of this debate is saying is that "your freedom to act on those beliefs ends when it negatively affects a single other person without their consent".

Yeah, the negative externality argument. I don't buy it. It can be used against your own argument: your being an atheist influences the children of theists away from the Light; therefore, the belief and act of believing in atheism negatively affects others without their consent.

It's pretty much impossible to do anything without harming others. What matters is the nature of the exchange which delineates duties to others.
(This is why I find the gay couple suing the bakery to be despicable. They're trying to get the state to bludgeon people into selling whatever to whoever. That's totally unnecessary; they can simply be civilized and use their words to convince others not to shop at bigoted places).

[crispybits]

The point is TGD that I'm not intolerant of them. If you want to believe certain things I'm not trying to stop you. I disagree with them sure. I'll argue with them and criticise them sure. But to be intolerant of them I'd have to be actively doing something to you against your will to prevent you holding them, or in some way abusing some form of authority to materially disadvantage you as a punishment for holding them. This is the distinction you don't seem to see between someone who is against something and someone who is intolerant of something. There is a world of difference between a critic and a bigot.

And that's why I jumped to persecution, because in my mind to act in a bigoted way does mean to persecute someone for whatever reason. When you use that term, what you are saying isn't that I disagree with whatever you say I'm bigoted against, but that I'm actively working to punish/disadvantage/whatever people who support that same thing. It doesn't matter if that's one person or a whole society, and it doesn't matter if the target feels persecuted or not, when someone acts in a bigoted way they invariably persecute whoever they are acting bigoted against.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not trying to have an atheism vs religion discussion TGD - you were the one that brought atheism into this by calling us bigots to try and somehow defend pro-religious homophobia.

I'm saying that you can have as much religious freedom over YOUR OWN life as you want. But critically you don't get to choose how much religious freedom others have in theirs, more specifically you don't get to enforce your religious rules on the population at large regardless of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). It's that simple. That's not atheist vs religion, that's freedom vs the kind of christian theocracy a large section of right wing america would seemingly love to impose...

(Again, using "you" in the general sense not in the personal sense)

Ovo I agree - I get riled only when some religious loon starts spouting off about something being against their religion and therefore it should be banned, or tries to spread wilful disinformation. If the religious lot just kept themselves to themselves and let everyone get on with living their own lives their own way, and stopped telling lies about what science says and does in an attempt to discredit the fact that their fairy-tales have been shown to be inconsistent, illogical and plain old impossible, then you'd not hear a word from me about religion except that I personally think it's a massive waste of time, money and energy.

So, you're against the imposition of religiously influenced law, but you're in favor of imposing what kind of normative beliefs on others?

[Metsfanmax]

I'm not trying to have an atheism vs religion discussion TGD - you were the one that brought atheism into this by calling us bigots to try and somehow defend pro-religious homophobia.

First, I brought up religious bigotry, not atheism. And you are a bigot if you're an atheist. You have no tolerance for religion. That's okay. No one cares.

That doesn't follow. Atheism is not a stance on religion, it is a stance on belief in god. I can believe there is no god and simultaneously be tolerant of religion. Disagreeing with someone doesn't inherently mean I can't tolerate them.

[crispybits]

Interesting imaginary distinction you have managed to create there. Oh well, at least your particular brand of open intolerance is definitely not 'thought policing'.

Let me try to put this another way - ever heard the expression "your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose"? As in you are free to do or think or believe or speak out for anything you like that only affects you. Nobody is trying to take away that freedom. What the pro-equality side of this debate is saying is that "your freedom to act on those beliefs ends when it negatively affects a single other person without their consent".

Yeah, the negative externality argument. I don't buy it. It can be used against your own argument: your being an atheist influences the children of theists away from the Light; therefore, the belief and act of believing in atheism negatively affects others without their consent.

It's pretty much impossible to do anything without harming others. What matters is the nature of the exchange which delineates duties to others.
(This is why I find the gay couple suing the bakery to be despicable. They're trying to get the state to bludgeon people into selling whatever to whoever. That's totally unnecessary; they can simply be civilized and use their words to convince others not to shop at bigoted places).

First you have to show why a minor influence on any given person to believe in atheism is negative. There's a big difference between that kind of influence, and trying to assert a religious tenet through force of secular law.

I think the gay couple with the wedding cake went too far too - I haven't supported that at any point - just like if someone got punched and punched back I wouldn't defend their act of violence as acceptable. I'd also criticise the guy who threw the first punch though...

[thegreekdog]

The point is TGD that I'm not intolerant of them. If you want to believe certain things I'm not trying to stop you. I disagree with them sure. I'll argue with them and criticise them sure. But to be intolerant of them I'd have to be actively doing something to you against your will to prevent you holding them, or in some way abusing some form of authority to materially disadvantage you as a punishment for holding them. This is the distinction you don't seem to see between someone who is against something and someone who is intolerant of something. There is a world of difference between a critic and a bigot.

And that's why I jumped to persecution, because in my mind to act in a bigoted way does mean to persecute someone for whatever reason. When you use that term, what you are saying isn't that I disagree with whatever you say I'm bigoted against, but that I'm actively working to punish/disadvantage/whatever people who support that same thing. It doesn't matter if that's one person or a whole society, and it doesn't matter if the target feels persecuted or not, when someone acts in a bigoted way they invariably persecute whoever they are acting bigoted against.

I don't agree that persecution follows bigotry. I would tend toward a negative view of bigotry when it begets persecution (which, as you point out, bigotry does tend to beget persecution). The word "bigot" is viewed in a negative light primarily because bigotry tends to beget persecution. But it doesn't have to beget persecution. And bigotry is not, in and of itself, a negative thing. I'm bigoted towards the idea of pedophilia, for example.

In any event, we need look no further than you to see that bigots don't invariably persecute. You are intolerant of religion, which you believe to be a fantasy and a waste of time and money. But you don't persecute religious people (ignoring BBS's argument from the last page).

I'm not trying to have an atheism vs religion discussion TGD - you were the one that brought atheism into this by calling us bigots to try and somehow defend pro-religious homophobia.

First, I brought up religious bigotry, not atheism. And you are a bigot if you're an atheist. You have no tolerance for religion. That's okay. No one cares.

That doesn't follow. Atheism is not a stance on religion, it is a stance on belief in god. I can believe there is no god and simultaneously be tolerant of religion. Disagreeing with someone doesn't inherently mean I can't tolerate them.

You can be bigoted towards an idea according to the definition (the belief in God, or religion generally). So it does follow. You are intolerant of an idea (belief in God).

Would it help you guys if I didn't refer to a bigot unless it was in the context of persecution? It seems like you can't handle the dictionary definition of bigotry not having a value judgement attached to it since your personal definition of bigotry has a value judgment attached to it.

[thegreekdog]

Interesting imaginary distinction you have managed to create there. Oh well, at least your particular brand of open intolerance is definitely not 'thought policing'.

Let me try to put this another way - ever heard the expression "your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose"? As in you are free to do or think or believe or speak out for anything you like that only affects you. Nobody is trying to take away that freedom. What the pro-equality side of this debate is saying is that "your freedom to act on those beliefs ends when it negatively affects a single other person without their consent".

Yeah, the negative externality argument. I don't buy it. It can be used against your own argument: your being an atheist influences the children of theists away from the Light; therefore, the belief and act of believing in atheism negatively affects others without their consent.

It's pretty much impossible to do anything without harming others. What matters is the nature of the exchange which delineates duties to others.
(This is why I find the gay couple suing the bakery to be despicable. They're trying to get the state to bludgeon people into selling whatever to whoever. That's totally unnecessary; they can simply be civilized and use their words to convince others not to shop at bigoted places).

First you have to show why a minor influence on any given person to believe in atheism is negative. There's a big difference between that kind of influence, and trying to assert a religious tenet through force of secular law.

I think the gay couple with the wedding cake went too far too - I haven't supported that at any point - just like if someone got punched and punched back I wouldn't defend their act of violence as acceptable. I'd also criticise the guy who threw the first punch though...

Why do you think the gay couple went too far? I think they did what was permitted under the law and I'm okay with what they did (I'm not sure what the harm is in going to a different baker/photographer/venue to get married or whatever, but what do I know?). The point is not necessarily what the gay couple did, it's what the law says.

EDIT - By the way, that's part of the argument here. Is it a religious belief to be against gay marriage? Or, more accurately, is the religious belief that marriage is between a man and woman a valid religious belief that is protected under the First Amendment? That's where I think the issue will be decided in the Supreme Court (similar to the line of polygamy cases - is polygamy a necessary tenet of the Mormon religion?)

[crispybits]

So, you're against the imposition of religiously influenced law, but you're in favor of imposing what kind of normative beliefs on others?

I'm against the use of religion to justify why a law is needed. If a law is necessary then there must be some sort of significant and measurable harm being done to society by people who are breaking the rule the law would establish. If this harm does not exist, then there is no need to have the law in the first place.

If this harm exists, then there is no need for religious justification, because you can point to the harm and say "this is what the law is for".

Being distasteful or offensive cannot be considered significant in this context, otherwise we go down a slippery slope where if one person is offended by something then that caused harm and should be banned. On the bright side, if we did do that, at least Bieber would be long dead by now for death penalty crimes...

[thegreekdog]

So, you're against the imposition of religiously influenced law, but you're in favor of imposing what kind of normative beliefs on others?

I'm against the use of religion to justify why a law is needed. If a law is necessary then there must be some sort of significant and measurable harm being done to society by people who are breaking the rule the law would establish. If this harm does not exist, then there is no need to have the law in the first place.

If this harm exists, then there is no need for religious justification, because you can point to the harm and say "this is what the law is for".

Being distasteful or offensive cannot be considered significant in this context, otherwise we go down a slippery slope where if one person is offended by something then that caused harm and should be banned. On the bright side, if we did do that, at least Bieber would be long dead by now for death penalty crimes...

Okay, so here's the question. Do you think a law permitting gays to sue businesses for discrimination is needed? I would say yes. The next question is, do you think a law permitting gays to sue businesses for discrimination should have an exception where the discrimination was done for valid religious reasons? I have no idea.

[crispybits]

Why do you think the gay couple went too far? I think they did what was permitted under the law and I'm okay with what they did (I'm not sure what the harm is in going to a different baker/photographer/venue to get married or whatever, but what do I know?). The point is not necessarily what the gay couple did, it's what the law says.

It's more a political strategy thing. I don't disagree they had every right to go down the route they did, I just think that there were potentially several more optimal things they could have done for the long term benefit of their political position. It's given the fundies something to point at and say "we were forced to do that!!!" and while it's hardened an important principle in law which is a good thing maybe the softer approach would have moved the entire debate along more effectively than the all guns blazing one. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't claim to be an expert on that kinda stuff, but that's my gut feeling.

[thegreekdog]

Why do you think the gay couple went too far? I think they did what was permitted under the law and I'm okay with what they did (I'm not sure what the harm is in going to a different baker/photographer/venue to get married or whatever, but what do I know?). The point is not necessarily what the gay couple did, it's what the law says.

It's more a political strategy thing. I don't disagree they had every right to go down the route they did, I just think that there were potentially several more optimal things they could have done for the long term benefit of their political position. It's given the fundies something to point at and say "we were forced to do that!!!" and while it's hardened an important principle in law which is a good thing maybe the softer approach would have moved the entire debate along more effectively than the all guns blazing one. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't claim to be an expert on that kinda stuff, but that's my gut feeling.

I don't know enough about gays to understand the reasoning behind this. If a business decided not to bake my wedding cake because I was Greek or whatever, I would say "Go f*ck yourself" and pay the next baker (and I would tell all my friends not to go to that baker, which would hopefully gain enough momentum to put the baker out of business - CAPITALISM!). That is an appropriate response for me. Suing the baker for discrimination seems to give the religious right more fodder (as you put it) and harden resolve and all that (again, as you put it). So it doesn't seem like the best strategy. But again, what do I know? I'm not gay and not part of the movement.

[crispybits]

Okay, so here's the question. Do you think a law permitting gays to sue businesses for discrimination is needed? I would say yes. The next question is, do you think a law permitting gays to sue businesses for discrimination should have an exception where the discrimination was done for valid religious reasons? I have no idea.

"Valid" religious reasons?

First question - answer yes. And not just gays, but gender, age and race should also be protected. These are things none of us has any control over and anyone discriminating on any of these things is a douche imo.

Second question - how can I put this (remember I'm jumping between a few different theads of this argument so bear with). If someone has a religious rule that says "don't be gay" then a valid religious reason for not providing a service would be that "providing that service would force me to be gay". An invalid reason for not providing that service would be "because the recipient of the service is gay". Just like the religious rule "don't eat pork" is not broken by being a religious waiter who takes a plate of pork sausages to someone in a restaurant, only by the religious person being paid to eat pork (struggling to think of when that would happen but meh...)

[thegreekdog]

Okay, so here's the question. Do you think a law permitting gays to sue businesses for discrimination is needed? I would say yes. The next question is, do you think a law permitting gays to sue businesses for discrimination should have an exception where the discrimination was done for valid religious reasons? I have no idea.

"Valid" religious reasons?

First question - answer yes. And not just gays, but gender, age and race should also be protected. These are things none of us has any control over and anyone discriminating on any of these things is a douche imo.

Second question - how can I put this (remember I'm jumping between a few different theads of this argument so bear with). If someone has a religious rule that says "don't be gay" then a valid religious reason for not providing a service would be that "providing that service would force me to be gay". An invalid reason for not providing that service would be "because the recipient of the service is gay". Just like the religious rule "don't eat pork" is not broken by being a religious waiter who takes a plate of pork sausages to someone in a restaurant, only by the religious person being paid to eat pork (struggling to think of when that would happen but meh...)

I don't think it's "I would be gay," I think it's "I would participate in a gay marriage" by providing a cake or whatever. I think it's stupid too, but I suspect that most church leaders, if not all, would look aghast at a baker providing a wedding cake to a gay wedding. So it's not that the recipient of the service is gay, it's that the service being provided supports gay marriage. Which is against that person's religion.