Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:41 pm
We need the rep system back...ArcticFox wrote:
The ultimate Christian gaming community!
https://christcenteredgamer.com/phpBB3/
https://christcenteredgamer.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=22935
We need the rep system back...ArcticFox wrote:
I already answered that, and I said no. To put someone in jail right off the bat for this is ridiculous and cases where that has happened the government clearly did the wrong thing.ArcticFox wrote:
Is jail a reasonable consequence for someone refusing to bake a cake with a man/man cake topper on it?
That's not quite the case. This controversy always keeps going back and forth over the laws, their wording and how they will be applied. The deeper issues behind the controversy as a whole have never been resolved. That's what I've tried to emphasize. If no one can come to some sort of workable solution on this then this issue will keep happening again. It doesn't matter which side "wins out", it is a negative sum equation. No one really benefits from this continual fight and everyone from both sides stand to lose from this, regardless of the result.ArcticFox wrote:
Because that's really what's being argued here.
Like I said, jail right off the bat is absurd.ArcticFox wrote:
When we talk about Government force what we ultimately mean is things where the penalty is being thrown in jail. It starts with fines, but ultimately if you don't pay them, you get arrested. Look at the baker in CO who was threatened with jail right off the bat.
So if you're arguing in support of forcing someone to bake a gay wedding cake over their own religious objections, what you're saying is that the act of sending a couple down the street to a different bakery is a grievous enough crime to warrant being tossed in jail.
I quite agree, and pretty much is what I've been trying to say as well.ArcticFox wrote:I've been thinking a lot about this issue, and in trying to more eloquently express why it's wrong for the Government to force people to do business practices they object to in cases like these. Obviously, the "freedom" argument isn't enough to sway everyone, because too many people in our society today are happy to sacrifice freedoms if they don't personally feel affected by it. (In other words, people are happy to sacrifice the other guy's liberty for their own convenience.)
And thinking of it that way brought me to this:
Is jail a reasonable consequence for someone refusing to bake a cake with a man/man cake topper on it?
Because that's really what's being argued here. When we talk about Government force what we ultimately mean is things where the penalty is being thrown in jail. It starts with fines, but ultimately if you don't pay them, you get arrested. Look at the baker in CO who was threatened with jail right off the bat.
So if you're arguing in support of forcing someone to bake a gay wedding cake over their own religious objections, what you're saying is that the act of sending a couple down the street to a different bakery is a grievous enough crime to warrant being tossed in jail.
And I find that absurd.
It doesn't matter. You can't impose a fine for a penalty unless you're prepared to ultimately incarcerate the person if they refuse to pay it. So it still comes back to the original point. If you're going to make a law over it at all, you have to be ready to incarcerate.RoosterOnAStick wrote: Second, what kind of fine are we talking about?
I don't think incarceration is the only possible outcome. It would be far more likely that repeated refusals to comply would result in a revocation of the business license instead. Still not desirable but certainly would not involve jail time.ArcticFox wrote:It doesn't matter. You can't impose a fine for a penalty unless you're prepared to ultimately incarcerate the person if they refuse to pay it. So it still comes back to the original point. If you're going to make a law over it at all, you have to be ready to incarcerate.RoosterOnAStick wrote: Second, what kind of fine are we talking about?
Dude you go to jail for not paying parking tickets if you wait long enough, and getting your license suspended won't save you from it.RoosterOnAStick wrote: I don't think incarceration is the only possible outcome. It would be far more likely that repeated refusals to comply would result in a revocation of the business license instead. Still not desirable but certainly would not involve jail time.
And are your criteria completely safe from abuse by either side?RoosterOnAStick wrote: If the objection is not warranted (and I have laid out repeatedly the criteria for distinguishing the two) then no, the business does not have a right to file a grievance because their beliefs are not under attack in the first place.
Sure there is. Don't use the Government to force people to violate their beliefs, and don't try to have the Government decide whose beliefs count. It's impossible to draw that line equitably, so it's better not to even try. Let private business owners be private business owners.RoosterOnAStick wrote: There is no one size fits all answer for this issue.
Is that how it would work regarding businesses though? I actually don't know the specifics so filling in that blank would help.ArcticFox wrote:
Dude you go to jail for not paying parking tickets if you wait long enough, and getting your license suspended won't save you from it.
I would certainly say it is by far a lot safer from abuse than the currently proposed solutions. Both options of just letting private businesses do as they wish and telling everyone they must comply with all requests despite beliefs (correct or not) leave the door wide open for abuse. Whichever side "wins" and gets their way can and most likely will abuse it. The problem is that there are those on both sides who will not merely be satisfied if the rulings went their way. These same vocal people often want to push for more and won't be satisfied until they have completely taken over. Both parties have been guilty of that as of late. So I do not trust either solution and a better one needs to be implemented. As it stands now, the current choices we have been presented go too far in one direction or another. Whichever side it happens to favor will have all the leeway they need to take advantage of it in ways that may not have been the intent. Since only the letter of the law matters these days and both sides have put a lot of effort into shaping and manipulating the law to favor their side, do you think it will really stop once one side prevails on this particular issue?ArcticFox wrote:
And are your criteria completely safe from abuse by either side?
I disagree, because there are multiple possible scenarios and therefore sometimes the government should stay out and other times it should intervene. Even if they do the level of intervention is not a one size fits all answer either. It all depends on the situation.ArcticFox wrote:
Sure there is. Don't use the Government to force people to violate their beliefs, and don't try to have the Government decide whose beliefs count. It's impossible to draw that line equitably, so it's better not to even try. Let private business owners be private business owners.
Because ultimately, trying to decide whether someone's beliefs are sincere enough is still putting all the control in Government hands, and that isn't what rights are.
Who is the one who determines whether or not the belief is "correct?" Is it the government that legislates morality in this nation? Is it the individual communities? Is it the individual?RoosterOnAStick wrote: Also, the issue isn't sincerity of the belief, the issue is correctness of said belief as I said before.
Agreed, I think this is the crux of the issue. People who are comfortable supporting the Government enforcing particular moral behaviors as of they're objectively true are forgetting that in a secular context, morality is subjective.Sstavix wrote: Who is the one who determines whether or not the belief is "correct?" Is it the government that legislates morality in this nation? Is it the individual communities? Is it the individual?
For number one, there's a fine line there that's often treated as the Grand Canyon. And I tend to not see it being practiced in churches who have accepted it. For example, homosexual pastors and becoming a norm, and no restraint is placed on their relationship; but can you imagine a church where even the youth pastor was having sex outside of marriage? Instant job replacement.RoosterOnAStick wrote:I still think that's painting too broad a brush, but supposing that the vast majority of homosexuals were like this...
Even with that as an additional hurdle, there are ways to bring it up and ways not to bring it up. Most people are aware of what Christianity teaches but it is important to note several things:
1) It is only homosexual activity, not their sexual orientation in of itself.
2) To make clear that it is an automatic condemnation any more than heterosexual ones (more on this later in the post).
3) There is no double standard that makes homosexuality any better or worse than anything else. I understand this may come off as being "soft", but I think this perspective is due to an unnecessary level of harshness and attention.
4) We are no better than them
5) We are not trying to "change" their sexuality either by trying to "make them straight" or something. There are all kinds of horror stories talking about those and it kind of relates to #1. It is not their orientation or identity we are trying to change (of which they may not have any control over).
There is also the fact that Christians have all too often done the same thing in regards to this and other similar controversies as well, which doesn't help our case much.
Who said there was only two options? I certainly didn't.RoosterOnAStick wrote:I didn't say that it was, although I don't think these are the only two options. Rather than this line of reasoning, it would be better to re-emphasize teachings about heterosexual relations. Again, the whole point here is to show that there is no double standard.
See, there's a point where that becomes enabling, and not love. Compassion and gentleness are not always love. To put it in another perspective, suppose you know someone who's an alcoholic. Which is love? To continue picking them up from bars and driving them home until they get tired of the lifestyle, or dead? Or to check them into AA? Or even to set them down with family and have a chat over how they're wrecking their life?RoosterOnAStick wrote:Not sure if we are defining the term lovingly in the same way here. I think part of that love is to of course is to say what Christianity teaches, but people need to come to it in their own time and just to have someone who will be there for them regardless. If they come to the realization, great, if not, that should not change how we relate to them. It seems to go back to once again, the idea that treating this without incredibly harsh or austere measures is mistakenly thought of as "too soft". Tell them the fullness of the truth when they are ready to hear it and possibly consider and/or accept it. Each situation is different and to give a heavy handed one size fits all approach would be ineffective at best and downright cruel at worst.
True. But with a caveat. In that passage with Paul (or maybe the later one in Corinthians), directly afterwords, he says "And some of you were such things". The emphasis is mine, but I think it's important because it shows repentance. Not going straight, but repentance. Which, to repeat myself, is not something you're going to get in a world which does not acknowledge sin. Why repent if you're not doing something wrong?RoosterOnAStick wrote:I am not sure of my answer second question just yet but I will gladly explain my reasoning regarding the first...
As for Paul, there are verses such as the one quoted here and others relating to it to take into context. I do not think the words used to describe homosexuality in this passage or other related ones are limited to just that one item. In another one he lists a whole bunch of people who will not inherit the Kingdom, which includes heterosexual sins (fornication) as well. They are all lumped in together.
Although, as he also writes all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. God is merciful to all of us, and we do not deserve it regardless of what the issue is. As he also writes in Corinthians God will judge those outside the Church. Our responsibility is towards those in the Church. Therefore, once more, proclaiming a final judgment would not be the correct thing to do. In like manner, to say that the harshest words only apply to one particular sin that Paul names to me is a misinterpretation. It seems here and elsewhere he treats them all equally.
There is much more I could say on this topic but I think this is enough for now. Hope that helps.
And you are entirely, 100% entitled to believe that. It's a God-given right. You are allowed and encouraged even, to hold to that belief. And because of human rights, given by God and acknowledged at times by Uncle Sam, you can sit here and tell me about your views.RoosterOnAStick wrote:Refusing to be a part of something that is believed to be wrong isn't an irrational request in itself. However, it circles back around to what constitutes as being a part of an event in the first place. Not every business situation does and therefore it would not be the right thing to do in those cases. Some beliefs can be mistaken and therefore wrong. I have made clear that refusing service on the issue of wedding cakes under any or all conditions is a wrong viewpoint to have. I may not have explicitly said that until now but that's the main thesis. I believe that some situations do not constitute as being asked to partake in something that goes against someone's beliefs and thus these situations are not covered by freedom of religion. These do not constitute a right and should not be defended as if they were.
This, by the way, is the greatest.ArcticFox wrote: