Ranking
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
But forcing someone out of their job is?

That's some very creative morality you have there.

No, it's not.

Tell me how many people have died from not getting their wedding cake or wedding license, and if it's even remotely comparable to the number of people that would die of police or doctors or drugstores refused service then I'll concede your point.

I literally am not going to respond to you after this, you clearly don't understand the world you live in. Or... you live in a weird, oh so weird bubble.

"But forcing someone out of their job is?"

Yeah, if you do something that is illegal or immoral, lets say you work at a daycare center but you are a nudist, they can go "don't be naked". Its not a right to be naked around children even if you have some beliefs such as "clothes are evil". They can force you to wear clothes or get fired (or in the other case give marriage licenses to gays).

"Tell me how many people have died from not getting their wedding cake or wedding license,"

So racism is fine as long as nobody dies......
Everyone should try to prevent needless suffering.
Suffering is being afraid to go shopping because of the color of your skin or sexual identity.
Suffering is NOT: not being allowed to call black people niggers and refuse to sell shit to them.

"tell me how many people died when niggers had separate water fountains and couldnt vote? NOBODY DIED BECAUSE AMERICA!"
Last edited by cowmeat; Sep 17, 2015 at 10:52 AM.
Originally Posted by cowmeat View Post
Yeah, if you do something that is illegal or immoral, lets say you work at a daycare center but you are a nudist, they can go "don't be naked". Its not a right to be naked around children even if you have some beliefs such as "clothes are evil". They can force you to wear clothes or get fired (or in the other case give marriage licenses to gays).

Morality is not universal, from the perspective of a Christian being homosexual is immoral. From their perspective the choice is between burning in hell for eternity (or, depending on the denomination, having to explain to your creator why you willingly committed sin and the guilt of entering heaven regardless) or denying a marriage license.

Originally Posted by cowmeat View Post
So racism is fine as long as nobody dies......
Suffering is suffering, and everyone should try to prevent needless suffering.
Suffering is NOT: not being allowed to call black people niggers and refuse to sell shit to them.

lol if you really thought that then you wouldn't have had to make the ad absurdium argument that "Im not protecting/selling meds to that nigger, let him get killed." Nice work mate, but putting that aside...

Exactly how is "not getting married" more suffering than "loosing your job/business"? In what world is that correct? Exactly why is discriminating based on religion ok, but based on sexuality not ok? Exactly why should someone be forced to do something they believe to be morally wrong when not doing so would cause absolutely no harm? Why are you so supportive of deviant sexuality, but so anti-religion?

You claim I live in a bubble, but here you are saying that your personally are the arbiter of morality, the moral compass that ought to guide humanity. Hopefully you can understand how absurd is.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
I personally believe that it should be just fine for a priest to deny sermons to gay people. However, as a government employee, she should have been representing the federal government's view on gay marriage, not her own religion's
Originally Posted by Shmevin View Post
If a devout Christian issues a marriage license to a same sex couple, the consequences are far beyond that of "interfering with someone's diet." To someone who does not understand or follow that person's religious beliefs, it may seem like a petty thing to do, but to them there are severe moral, social, and religious conflicts and repercussions.

The issue lies within the United State's current business laws. You're allowed to refuse service if it would hinder your ability to provide service or negatively effect your business, but you are not allowed to deny service based on the characteristics of the possible customers.

I personally believe that any business owner should have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason. Sure they will lose a sale, and possibly other sales because of their choice, but that should be the only punishment they receive as a result.


She worked for the government, she also stopped her employees from conducting gay marriages too. That is not okay whatever the fuck you believe in. She broke the law and should be punished, she did not work for a private company. She defied the Supreme Court.

Marriage stopped being religious once it was separated from the church and brought into state, with tax benefits on top of that.
-----
Denying someone's right to discriminate is not discrimination.

If someone is yelling about how much they hate gays telling them to shut up is not discrimination.
Last edited by lillian; Sep 17, 2015 at 05:22 PM. Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[4:37 PM] ponf: y'all might think i'm not wild enough to send dick pics over toribash
[4:37 PM] ponf: you'd be wrong
uwu i wuv you uwu
Originally Posted by cowmeat View Post
"Cant tell a black guy to go to another store because I'm racist.
I'm such a victim"

Discriminating others is not a right........
I think being equally treated in the economy is a right tho.

Let me go ahead and summarize John Locke's essay "A letter concerning toleration"

It essentially says that the state cannot force people to partake in one religion, because forcing them to convert removes their right to religious consciousness.

This concept can be extrapolated to any given set of beliefs. You cannot force a person to accommodate gays/transgenders/furries/bronies/dragonkin/whatever if they object to it. If you as a state attack them, the only thing you're doing is sowing the seeds of hatred. If people feel antagonized or persecuted for their beliefs, regardless of their actual beliefs, they will not sit down and suddenly accommodate those people.

It's best to let time resolve issues of intolerance. You have to tolerate intolerant people or you yourself are also intolerant and cannot logically claim to be tolerant.

Kim Davis should have been fired however, she is a public servant, not a private employee.
Hoss.
Originally Posted by Shmevin View Post
If a devout Christian issues a marriage license to a same sex couple, the consequences are far beyond that of "interfering with someone's diet." To someone who does not understand or follow that person's religious beliefs, it may seem like a petty thing to do, but to them there are severe moral, social, and religious conflicts and repercussions.

The issue lies within the United State's current business laws. You're allowed to refuse service if it would hinder your ability to provide service or negatively effect your business, but you are not allowed to deny service based on the characteristics of the possible customers.

I personally believe that any business owner should have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason. Sure they will lose a sale, and possibly other sales because of their choice, but that should be the only punishment they receive as a result.

I agree with you one the point that a business owner has the right to deny a service to a customer, HOWEVER I think this shouldn't be based upon Race or Religious Beliefs. I feel that the law is bang on point there.

I think my above points also deals on the source of argument above.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
In a world where white people are assaulted or killed for stepping foot in the ghetto, you have to go with "imagine being a black person going into a store and being told you have to leave!"?

Although I disagree with the above, it's not major point so we can ignore it.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Take a step back and put yourself in the shoes of the victims of these situations.

I think you don't really understand what it means to be discriminated against. I live in South Africa, so I should know best of all, You con't seem to comprehend how degenerative and sad it is when you are denied a simply because of the color of your skin.

There is basically no discussion to be had here. It's illegal now to deny two gay people to get married, and that is that. I am confused what else there is to discuss?

She is in the wrong, and should be punished.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Exactly how is "not getting married" more suffering than "loosing your job/business"? In what world is that correct? Exactly why is discriminating based on religion ok, but based on sexuality not ok? Exactly why should someone be forced to do something they believe to be morally wrong when not doing so would cause absolutely no harm? Why are you so supportive of deviant sexuality, but so anti-religion?

Pretty sure you know better than this. If you refuse to do your job, then a more suitable person will be employed. The job itself is an exchange of work from the employee for money from the employer, if either party is unable to fulfil its side of the deal for whatever reason then their is no obligation for the other to fulfil the other. What has happened is that a personal issue the nature of which beyond its longevity is irrelevant has got in the way of somebody's ability to do their job. It is sad, and it is unfair that some people should be put in these situations while others are not, but it isn't anyone's fault (as in it isn't caused by a fault in anybody and little could be done to prevent it which would have made sense to do at the time).

It is discrimination against someone for their unsuitability for their own position but I doubt you would argue that such discrimination is much of a problem in the world.

Basically, the morality of homosexuality and the morality and accuracy of religious beliefs are irrelevant.
-----
Originally Posted by Kyure View Post
She is in the wrong, and should be punished.

Originally Posted by Kyure
wrong

We could always just discuss what you mean by wrong.

I see no problem in drifting a little from the central topic at this point if nobody else minds it. I'm sure a lot of people would either enjoy, or gain a little from, a discussion about this sort of morality.
Last edited by Zelda; Sep 17, 2015 at 10:59 PM. Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
Good morning sweet princess
She broke a law, how is she not in the wrong?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[4:37 PM] ponf: y'all might think i'm not wild enough to send dick pics over toribash
[4:37 PM] ponf: you'd be wrong
uwu i wuv you uwu
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
We could always just discuss what you mean by wrong..

The woman denied two men their basic human rights, violating the fourteenth amendment. She was in the wrong completely.

There is no discussion to be had. She is a criminal, and what she did deserves punishment.