Post by goz on May 19, 2019 22:10:27 GMT
First of all, demonstrate to me precisely how that 'logically' applies to racial discrimination, or the repeal of those laws prohibiting it.
Secondly, I'm no fan of laissez-faire capitalism, the sort that can be used to support the racial discrimination within it that you mention. And stop trying to conflate discrimination based on race, which is an inhering physical fact (and as sexual orientation is increasingly being shown to be, as well) with discrimination based on religious practice, which is not.
Where was the 'switch' you were referring to? Because I posted that observation in my second response doesn't mean it didn't apply to the first as well. Jebus, spare me from debaters who think the way to score points is by taking their opponent's words and re-tailoring them, or who try to plant their own inferences into plain statements.
Where's the switch? The switch is when you post this (what prompted my response):
"Good point. Let the marketplace deal with those types. They live and die by it anyway, so if their own prejudices doom them to eventual bankruptcy, they can always ask god for financial help I suppose."
But you also post that there should be laws to deal with businesses that discriminate against gays. In an academic setting, those would be the stated opposing propositions in a debate. Say one of those, but also say the other, then you've made a switch.
If it's your position is that it's not enough to let the market deal with discrimination against gays, and that laws are needed to deal with it, then fine. I agree with that, and I would have had no reason to respond to that post of yours in the first place.
'entitled updates and summary'.
I will instead do it here as the discussion at the moment is very interesting and pertinent to what I was going to post.
Update: The rugby player has had his $4million contract cancelled and it thought he might appeal ( despite some evidence that he actually wanted to get out of his contract anyway as he has played professional sport since he was 17 and wants to be a preacher ( just with a lot of money from suing Rugby Australia for the 4 mill....VERY Christian]
Summary:
The absolute best quote I have seen to sum up the whole situation under discussion here ( from a gay sport journalist]
To me this is where the laws come in about discrimination about which Isopop and Amyghost are arguing.
I also repeat the last paragraph in the article which also sums up the problem.
In other words, since equality and religious freedom are both positive rights under international law, and there is no hierarchy of human rights, it is more accurate to provide positive protection for religious freedom which reflects its status as a human right alongside, and not inferior to, the right of equality.
So basically it comes down to whether a religious right ( often included in the right to freedom of speech )
overrides the basic human right of equality and lack of discrimination.
Should the law favour religious freedom to
or not? or even more simply...
do religious people have the right to discriminate against others or should 'others' be protected by anti-discrimination law?
Which is ore important to have protected in law? 'Religious freedom and freedom of speech or the human right of equality and lack of discrimination?