Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
Religion No Excuse For Gay Discrimination
316 Answers
In a similar case to Cakegate, a court in the US has ruled that discrimination against gays on religious grounds isn't lawful:
https:/
https:/
Answers
A, I am not ranting. B, I have the balls to call out homophobic bigots what ever their religion ... try it for once.
09:18 Fri 17th Feb 2017
NAOMI, you said "no one should be affected in any way whatsoever by someone else's religious beliefs." but also said, "Personally I don’t believe that anyone should be obliged by law to provide a service they don’t wish to provide."
If a business refuses to provide a service because of a religious belief, do your opinions not contradict each other? Which takes priority, the right to offend or the right to refuse?
If a business refuses to provide a service because of a religious belief, do your opinions not contradict each other? Which takes priority, the right to offend or the right to refuse?
> Ellipsis, perhaps there was no one else.
I think for the purposes of discussion we can safely assume there was nobody else. Otherwise that somebody else would have made the sale and there would be no problem.
> On the other hand perhaps this lady simply didn’t want her business involved in a ceremony that she, because of her religious beliefs, is unable to condone, so she stood by her principles.
If there was nobody else, then she had a simple choice between serving the customer or facing the chance of being prosecuted for her religious beliefs. She chose the latter, and now lays herself open to continuous prosecution or going out of business.
That may seem harsh. But if you replace "religious beliefs" with "prejudice" in your sentence and mine, that's the problem with her principles. Prejudice.
It's as if you're walking down a high street. You pass a baker's with a "No cakes for gay weddings" sign on the door, then a pub with a "No blacks, No Irish" sign on the door, then a florist's with a "No flowers for gay weddings" sign on the door. Which is prejudiced? They all are.
> "no one should be affected in any way whatsoever by someone else's religious beliefs."
Clearly, somebody trying to buy a flower service or a cake-decorating service for a gay wedding is affected by the religious beliefs - prejudice - of the proprietors of a business that provides that service, if it refuses to provide it to them.
I think for the purposes of discussion we can safely assume there was nobody else. Otherwise that somebody else would have made the sale and there would be no problem.
> On the other hand perhaps this lady simply didn’t want her business involved in a ceremony that she, because of her religious beliefs, is unable to condone, so she stood by her principles.
If there was nobody else, then she had a simple choice between serving the customer or facing the chance of being prosecuted for her religious beliefs. She chose the latter, and now lays herself open to continuous prosecution or going out of business.
That may seem harsh. But if you replace "religious beliefs" with "prejudice" in your sentence and mine, that's the problem with her principles. Prejudice.
It's as if you're walking down a high street. You pass a baker's with a "No cakes for gay weddings" sign on the door, then a pub with a "No blacks, No Irish" sign on the door, then a florist's with a "No flowers for gay weddings" sign on the door. Which is prejudiced? They all are.
> "no one should be affected in any way whatsoever by someone else's religious beliefs."
Clearly, somebody trying to buy a flower service or a cake-decorating service for a gay wedding is affected by the religious beliefs - prejudice - of the proprietors of a business that provides that service, if it refuses to provide it to them.
THECORBYLOON, no, my opinions do not contradict each other. This lady isn’t trying to stop the wedding. If she didn’t exist they would still be getting married so her religious views aren’t actually interfering with it at all. She simply doesn’t want to be personally involved. Although these are all people from what the District Attorney calls ‘a protected class’, she doesn’t have the right to refuse to do what she doesn’t want to do but they have the right to demand that she does it simply because they think she should - which is a bit of a cheek to say the least! In this instance, in my opinion, her right to ‘offend’ takes precedence.
Ellipsis, see above.
Ellipsis, see above.
If the florist has a right to offend then the couple has been affected by someone else's religious beliefs.
This is why the courts get involved and why Judges get a hard time. You have expressed the opinions of many but when there are two competing rights and obligations, it sometimes needs the courts to resolve the issues and one side will normally be a loser.
This is why the courts get involved and why Judges get a hard time. You have expressed the opinions of many but when there are two competing rights and obligations, it sometimes needs the courts to resolve the issues and one side will normally be a loser.
THECORBYLOON. They were not affected by her beliefs. Her refusal to become personally involved in their wedding didn’t prevent them from being married. Yes, there is always a winner – often, as I said earlier, he who shouts the loudest, makes the most fuss, and as long as he gets what he wants, cares nothing for the rights of others.
Prejudice is prejudice, it's that simple.
For example, suppose a different florist wasn't Christian, he just really didn't like the idea of gays getting married and refused to serve them. It's still prejudice, but this time he hasn't even got religion to hide behind.
So what are we saying ... that prejudiced, atheist florists must serve gays who want to get married, but prejudiced, religious florists don't have to?
It's all a nonsense. Discrimination is discrimination, prejudice is prejudice. This is not a case of gay rights trump religious rights, it's simply a case of prejudice being illegal no matter what the excuse.
For example, suppose a different florist wasn't Christian, he just really didn't like the idea of gays getting married and refused to serve them. It's still prejudice, but this time he hasn't even got religion to hide behind.
So what are we saying ... that prejudiced, atheist florists must serve gays who want to get married, but prejudiced, religious florists don't have to?
It's all a nonsense. Discrimination is discrimination, prejudice is prejudice. This is not a case of gay rights trump religious rights, it's simply a case of prejudice being illegal no matter what the excuse.
Ellipsis, //So what are we saying ... that prejudiced, atheist florists must serve gays who want to get married, but prejudiced, religious florists don't have to?//
That’s what usually happens, isn’t it? That’s why Muslims aren’t obliged to serve pork products or, if working as front line staff within the NHS, are allowed to cover their arms when hygiene rules for everyone else forbid it, which is why, when we have two people from different so-called ‘protected classes’ at odds, I question whose rights take precedence within the law. Since the gay couple were very eager to protect their rights, they should, in my opinion, have had the courtesy to understand that the rights of other people are often equally important to them, and rather than making a fuss, shopped elsewhere. Tolerance works both ways. I think your contention that religious people are simply prejudiced is misguided because it isn’t that simple. This lady’s faith teaches that homosexuality is wrong, she believes that, and therefore she wanted no part of this ceremony. It didn’t affect the couple’s plans and her choice should have been respected. There’s a big difference between religious belief and plain old prejudice. All of that said, I repeat, it is at times like this that the law finds itself climbing up its own bottom because legislating for the rights of one so very often results in denying the rights of another. With all their peculiar foibles, people are people and nothing will ever change that – not even the law. It might stop them talking or acting, but it will never stop them thinking or believing as they will. It’s a mad world!!
That’s what usually happens, isn’t it? That’s why Muslims aren’t obliged to serve pork products or, if working as front line staff within the NHS, are allowed to cover their arms when hygiene rules for everyone else forbid it, which is why, when we have two people from different so-called ‘protected classes’ at odds, I question whose rights take precedence within the law. Since the gay couple were very eager to protect their rights, they should, in my opinion, have had the courtesy to understand that the rights of other people are often equally important to them, and rather than making a fuss, shopped elsewhere. Tolerance works both ways. I think your contention that religious people are simply prejudiced is misguided because it isn’t that simple. This lady’s faith teaches that homosexuality is wrong, she believes that, and therefore she wanted no part of this ceremony. It didn’t affect the couple’s plans and her choice should have been respected. There’s a big difference between religious belief and plain old prejudice. All of that said, I repeat, it is at times like this that the law finds itself climbing up its own bottom because legislating for the rights of one so very often results in denying the rights of another. With all their peculiar foibles, people are people and nothing will ever change that – not even the law. It might stop them talking or acting, but it will never stop them thinking or believing as they will. It’s a mad world!!
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles62 mins ago
Strands #260 “Coming Up For...
Quizzes & Puzzles68 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles80 mins ago
Are We Heading Towards Another...
Politics232 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.