Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 16:32:20 GMT
Only if he already has them in inventory and won't sell them to the gay couple. Discrimination is against a person's protected class. If he's doing it specifically and only to the gay couple because of their homosexuality, yes, he's breaking the law. Just switch it to race, and the answer will be simple. "I don't stock or top black couples for black weddings because it's against my religion." There's a religion against black people being married? |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 19, 2018 16:38:38 GMT
That's just a hypothetical. Hyperbole to highlight a point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 16:54:39 GMT
That's just a hypothetical. Hyperbole to highlight a point. Then yes, if that baker won't stock black toppers because he's exercising a religious right then he shouldn't have to. But if that baker won't sell the cakes he makes everyday the way for others to blacks because they are black, then he's infringing on the rights of the protected class to be served. Same for any protected class, if the exact same product is denied because that person doesn't want to serve a protected class because of their religious values, then it's wrong to the person being served and we've passed laws to support that stance. There's a big difference between "We won't serve (pick your protected class) here." and "I won't be forced to use my hands to make something that I am religiously compelled not to." I'm not going to go into a Jewish delicatessen and force them to make me a ham sandwich. But if that person is being forced to change their service to serve some distinction a protected class desires, and that change to their service is against their religious values, their religious rights are being infringed. And some trying to force perfection are interpreting those laws to infringe on the rights of others. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 19, 2018 17:21:54 GMT
That's just a hypothetical. Hyperbole to highlight a point. Then yes, if that baker won't stock black toppers because he's exercising a religious right then he shouldn't have to. But if that baker won't sell the cakes he makes everyday the way for others to blacks because they are black, then he's infringing on the rights of the protected class to be served. Same for any protected class, if the exact same product is denied because that person doesn't want to serve a protected class because of their religious values, then it's wrong to the person being served and we've passed laws to support that stance. There's a big difference between "We won't serve (pick your protected class) here." and "I won't be forced to use my hands to make something that I am religiously compelled not to." I'm not going to go into a Jewish delicatessen and force them to make me a ham sandwich. And some trying to force perfection are interpreting those laws to infringe on the rights of others. Because a ham sandwich is not something the Jewish delicatessen makes. That baker makes cakes. That's all the couple wanted. A cake. The baker was not asked to officiate the wedding or even attend. He was asked to provide a service he provides to everybody else. The baker did in fact go down the "I won't serve you because you're gay" path. Those were the only people he didn't provide a service for. Strictly because of their protected class. Separate but equal does not work. That was overturned for a reason. They're not being infringed. There is no right to discriminate. It's that simple. Not even behind religion. Just as there is no right to steal, even if someone tried to say it's their religious value. Religion is not a bulletproof vest to discriminate. Preventing discrimination is enforcing the law. Not forcing perfection. That religious baker can hate gays all he wants in his heart and mind. He just can't discriminate against them in his business.
Again: discrimination is not a right. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 17:38:10 GMT
Thinking about it society has probably always been crap. But with social media we just see it more than we did before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 17:40:45 GMT
Then yes, if that baker won't stock black toppers because he's exercising a religious right then he shouldn't have to. But if that baker won't sell the cakes he makes everyday the way for others to blacks because they are black, then he's infringing on the rights of the protected class to be served. Same for any protected class, if the exact same product is denied because that person doesn't want to serve a protected class because of their religious values, then it's wrong to the person being served and we've passed laws to support that stance. There's a big difference between "We won't serve (pick your protected class) here." and "I won't be forced to use my hands to make something that I am religiously compelled not to." I'm not going to go into a Jewish delicatessen and force them to make me a ham sandwich. And some trying to force perfection are interpreting those laws to infringe on the rights of others. Because a ham sandwich is not something the Jewish delicatessen makes. That baker makes cakes. That's all the couple wanted. A cake. The baker was not asked to officiate the wedding or even attend. He was asked to provide a service he provides to everybody else. The baker did in fact go down the "I won't serve you because you're gay" path. Those were the only people he didn't provide a service for. Strictly because of their protected class. Separate but equal does not work. That was overturned for a reason. They're not being infringed. There is no right to discriminate. It's that simple. Not even behind religion. Just as there is no right to steal, even if someone tried to say it's their religious value. Religion is not a bulletproof vest to discriminate. Preventing discrimination is enforcing the law. Not forcing perfection. That religious baker can hate gays all he wants in his heart and mind. He just can't discriminate against them in his business.
Again: discrimination is not a right. I thought we weren't talking about that certain baker anymore. If that baker denied service because someone is gay, black, whatever, and he says that he shouldn't have to sell them a cake because they are gay, black, whatever because of his religious values yes, laws protect the customer. WE HAVE AGREEANCE HERE, I'll march up the steps to whatever capitol and hold a picket for the gay, black, whatever. That baker is wrong. Let's join in and fight that baker. But if that baker has to do something different to that cake, and that's what I'm trying to point out here, and that difference causes him to create a product that is contrary to his religious beliefs, that's the line where the "right to my hand ends at your nose". This baker is absolutely being religiously infringed if the product being output is different than all the other ones the baker makes because that protected class wants something depicting something the baker is religiously opposed to. This baker is not discriminating against a customer, this baker is exercising religious freedom not to produce a product contrary to religious beliefs. That's where I'm on this bakers side, not the first baker. Are you on this bakers side? |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 19, 2018 17:56:40 GMT
I'd have to know the details of the situation. What specifically about making a cake would be against his religion? Is it a Jewish baker being asked to make a ham cake? Is it a Christian baker being asked to make a meat cake during Lent?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 17:58:40 GMT
I'd have to know the details of the situation. What specifically about making a cake would be against his religion? Is it a Jewish baker being asked to make a ham cake? Is it a Christian baker being asked to make a meat cake during Lent? What if it's an Islamic fundamentalist baker being asked to put a same sex couple on top of their cake? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 18:47:32 GMT
Darn it all. And just when we had it nailed down too.
|
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Jan 19, 2018 19:16:35 GMT
Society has gotten worse. Crazies and idiots have taken over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jan 19, 2018 20:13:13 GMT
My point was that things that are said that are not hateful are being labeled as hate speech by an overly sensitive culture we are creating. Ofcourse the internet and social media has caused it to spread like wildfire. I was just saying that it is true that people were always outraged by things, but the level of that has increased by people being outraged by the most innocent of things. I think it's just that what some might not consider offensive, others would. Don't forget, the n-word was once considered not offensive. There were people who said the same thing about it as you are. It wasn't offensive to them. That was their equivalent of calling someone black. To them, it was an innocent label and the people who didn't like it were just looking to be outraged. After all, they could vote and had won civil rights. Why do they care what they were called? Newspapers used to run letters from readers where they'd complain about the "little" things. TV had call in shows where people did the same. The levels have never changed. Just the way they're delivered. The internet has made it faster and easier, but it's the same old hat. I see your point and the things you mention are progress. It should always be offensive for things like the N word. But some of the other things that people considered offensive are not progress, it only makes people walk on eggshells afraid to have a conversation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 23:15:43 GMT
As well as the reasons already posted, I also think society has gotten better because of the knowledge we have and the progress made with understanding psychology and the human mind. We have better and more accurate diagnoses of people with mental illness and find specific ways to treat it and understand people with it. There are more anti-bullying campaigns and bullying is finally taken seriously as a problem. Before people saw bullying as something the child would eventually get over and move on from (maybe), but now we see how much psychological damage it can impact a lot of people. There are also more resources and accommodations for children with learning disabilities or people with other conditions because of technology as well as understanding individual needs. Taking online courses my last year of college made it so much easier for me than actually going to class. Some may not like online classes but it actually helped me concentrate more. This wouldn't have been an option before the internet. The internet has its benefits that I think outweigh the disadvantages because it makes everything so easy to access and like I said accommodates specific people that would benefit from it. I also like that its accepted to be "different" and be your own individual unlike before where you were expected to be a certain way. I think people might say we have become worse because we're starting to understand who we are more, but I think that the fact we realize that about ourselves is actually an example of progress. We have to be aware of our problems first in order to do anything about them, so we are on the right track. I think what makes a society worse is when we are totally oblivious to what is going on around us.
|
|
shangel
Sophomore
@shangel
Posts: 301
Likes: 127
 
|
Post by shangel on Jan 20, 2018 4:26:55 GMT
Worse. Without a doubt, imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jan 20, 2018 7:24:11 GMT
In some ways better, in some ways worse. from a overall moral stand point things are overall worse now than they where say 50-60+ years ago for sure. p.s. I voted for worse overall even though some things have gotten better. PreachCaleb The text in bold in the above quote conflicts with one another because those two are clearly immoral things in the eyes of God (i.e. The Holy Trinity(Father/Son(Jesus Christ)/Holy Spirit)). abortion is murder to bottom line that issue for you and like I always say, anyone who don't respect human life at it's most innocent stage (i.e. in mothers womb), will likely make plenty of other immoral choices like supporting euthanasia etc (where does the moral decline end for these people?). basically the liberals tend to be backwards in plenty of key moral areas like abortion being one of the biggest if not THE biggest because it does not respect human life at it's most innocent level (i.e. does not protect the unborn). because once you cross that line it just opens the door to lower ones standards further and further as time passes. basically drifting away from God's standard of living just about guarantees a inevitable moral decline and abortion is a serious sin in the eyes of God but yet it's someones "choice" from a liberals point of view, but making it easier for someone to kill their baby is obviously a bad thing. liberals label it a "choice" but us conservatives tell the truth which is abortion takes the life of a innocent human being which is basically legalized murder. Pro-Life/Pro-Choice... see the difference there? ; one sugar coats a immoral thing where as the other tells it like it is which is a basic life issue and going against basic human life at it's most innocent stage is obviously wrong. but sadly, many don't see this and, even worse, some seem to promote it and act like it's no big deal etc. trust me, the overall moral state of the world (even here in the USA) is on the decline vs what it was say 50+ years ago overall (hell, I think even in the last 15-20 years or so things have gotten noticeably worse). I think someone has to be blind not to recognize at least that much. so while we have advanced in some ways, in many important areas things have generally gotten worse. p.s. the other two you mentioned (i.e. civil rights/women's right) are generally okay, except those more extreme "women's rights" types who are pretty much anti-family/anti-male etc. basically those more extreme feminist types, who are basically anti-male, generally make things worse for society overall because by nature males are better suited for doing certain things and the same goes for females, but those more extreme feminist types try to mirror males etc which just won't work by nature etc etc. you get the gist. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2018 8:57:11 GMT
Might the OP please define "society"? I don't think we are all on the same page.
|
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Jan 20, 2018 9:18:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 20, 2018 10:58:08 GMT
Everyone voting "worse" should be forced to read THIS. It seems a particularly strange quirk of human cognition to think imaginary, Edenic pasts are preferable to real presents. We're living in an age where life expectancy is at a high, where we have science, technology, and medicine that would've seemed like magic less than a century ago... yet people really think things are on a downward trajectory because of frivolities like PC culture and people bitching on social media? Really?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 2:57:38 GMT
Everyone voting "worse" should be forced to read THIS. It seems a particularly strange quirk of human cognition to think imaginary, Edenic pasts are preferable to real presents. We're living in an age where life expectancy is at a high, where we have science, technology, and medicine that would've seemed like magic less than a century ago... yet people really think things are on a downward trajectory because of frivolities like PC culture and people bitching on social media? Really? I honestly don’t get it either. |
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Jan 21, 2018 7:13:24 GMT
It's a hard question because there's so many aspects of society, but overall I'd say worse I hear ya', but as to the things getting worse business we have made great strides in medicine, more generally in science and technology. The information revolution of recent years has been a godsend for many of us, though it's probably caused many people to cut back on reading newspapers and books. Then there's the issue of which society we are speaking about. Are we speaking of the U.S.A.? Europe? East Asia? The quality of life differs wildly even on the same continents and, needless to say, societies. But quality of life is a difficult issue to determine. There are reasonably content poor, peaceful people who take life as it comes even as they have to scramble to make ends meet. Faith seems to be a big factor in happiness or, more broadly, spiritual contentment. Yet we in the U.S. have so much stress, anxiety, insecurity, personal issues, despair and depression. Then there's the emphasis on security and material well being, as in whether one owns one's own home or condo or rents. Misery is always there for some, happiness for others. Fair to middlin's probably near the norm for much of the U.S. That allows for a fair amount of stuff being wrong but also for good things, too. Sometimes a day just plain turns out beautifully. It's good to keep this in mind. I do. Overall, I'd say things are probably close to the same as they ever were, allowing for massive technological change. As recently as the first decade of just the last century there were no television or radios, movies, as we know them, scarcely existed, were largely peep shows, horses and buggies predominated where transportation was concerned, and the Internet as we know it was a hundred years down the road. |
|
Miller0700
New Member
@miller0700
Posts: 5
Likes: 5
|
Post by Miller0700 on Jan 21, 2018 8:04:30 GMT
|
|
