Quote from: Levi Kornelsen*Shrug*

If churches don't want to be affected by laws on discrimination in the workplace, they have an option open in their own text...  They can cease to be a workplace.

I don't recall "Jesus said you will be paid for your time, and will organize as a fiscal hierarchy." anywhere.

Churches as bodies of believers are great.  Churches as institutions suck.

When did a workplace become public domain? I mean, I know in some places where the workplace is nationalized (can you say Chavez?) this would be the case.  But why are private organizations of any kind held to this standard? Your view on churches, no matter how much I might or might not agree, is irrelevant.

But let's assume we accept your division.  Is it your position that you would be OK with discrimination as long as you weren't getting paid for your belief?  I mean, it makes no sense.

Quote from: James J SkachUmmm, wow.  So we are not free to think and act in a manner we choose as long as we are not involved in physical harm or fraud?

I love it when people try and take a human rights issue and make the bigoted asshole the real victim.  

Give it up.  I don't care.  I have no sympathy for bigotry, so trying to stir me to some great compassion to a guy who'd throw someone to the curb for sleeping with the wrong people is not really going to work.

QuoteJust curious - were you of the same thoughts about the demonstrations against the war in Iraq? How about the demonstrations in the US against illegal immigration?  How about abortion demonstrations? Anti-abortion demonstrations?

I thought screaming and yelling to try and get your way was exactly the kind of thing classical liberals want to see - it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

I think it's a fantastic way to ensure that the rest of the world won't take you seriously.

Demonstrations mean jack shit.  You can get more done with a letter to an MP or a Congressman that you can with a bunch of rabble screaming unintelligibly at people who have no part in the decisions.

Talk to the people who actually decide these things, and to it in a fashion that doesn't involve harrassing the public and making an ass of yourself in front of all the world.

Tend to be more productive.

Though in a way, I guess it's good they've chosen this route because it rather spectacularly decreases their chances of success.

Quote from: James J SkachWhen did a workplace become public domain? I mean, I know in some places where the workplace is nationalized (can you say Chavez?) this would be the case.  But why are private organizations of any kind held to this standard? Your view on churches, no matter how much I might or might not agree, is irrelevant.

But let's assume we accept your division.  Is it your position that you would be OK with discrimination as long as you weren't getting paid for your belief?  I mean, it makes no sense.

So tell me James, what would you say regarding an emplyer who refused to hire someone because he was black?

Or Native American?

Or Jewish?

Or Christian?

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen*Shrug*

If churches don't want to be affected by laws on discrimination in the workplace, they have an option open in their own text...  They can cease to be a workplace.

Except that the law does not appear to be limited to workplace discrimination.  I mean ... I don't know the law in any detail, but the quoted article says:

Quote from: AnthrobotThe Church of England has complained that vicars who refuse to bless civil partnerships may be also targeted.

Now maybe there's just a misunderstanding of what the law will cover.  Or maybe the law is vaguely worded enough that it could, indeed, apply to vicars in the pursuance of their religious duties.  Personally, that's the kind of thing that I'd want to have nailed down beyond any possible doubt, wouldn't you?  Especially since ...

Quote from: AnthrobotMiss Kelly has yet to publish final details of how the regulations will work. However, similar proposals for Northern Ireland say anyone found guilty of discrimination will face fines of between £500 and £1,000 for a first offence and up to £25,000 for repeat "serious" offences.

£25,000 is a fair chunk of change ... especially if the vicar now has no job because the church has decided to stop being a place of employment

Quote from: James J SkachWhen they came for the X, I did not complain, because I was not X...

What Tony is saying, I think, is that you are running into the situation where someone's behavioral "right" is running up against what here in America is considered one of the fundamental 1st Amendment rights - freedom of religion. So what happens when someone's religious belief is that homosexuality is wrong? Do you force someone with those beliefs to open up their private business even if it's against their fundamental religious belief?  Of course, you'll probably say "sure, they're bigots." But that's not really the question, is it?

Now we can all point to the optimistic view that we all agree that discriminating against someone based on sexual orientation is bigotry.  But what happens when they decide that discriminating against someone based on, oh, I don't know, political ideology is illegal? Will you be so ready to defend that? I doubt it. Would it be OK if we forced liberal think tanks to accept the membership of neo-conservatives? Hell no.

So it's all good as long as we can all point at "those desert cults" and agree to chastise them for their beliefs.  What happens when it's your belief under the gun?

I've stayed out of this and the majority rule thread, but there are certain truths about humans that you can't avoid.  You cannot control the way people think. Laws that try to do so only breed contempt.

No you cant control how folks think but that doesnt mean religion trumps everything else.

I mean, Mormons weren't allowed into the union until they renounced polygamy...

What if this goes beyond the person... is an employer allowed to fire a homosexual? A pharmacist allowed to not fill AZT prescriptions because people with AIDS are being punished?

Quote from: J ArcaneI love it when people try and take a human rights issue and make the bigoted asshole the real victim.

I'm not making them a victim.  I'm making you the victim. When, one day, your thoughts are called into question. Are his desires to worship as he sees fit not a human rights issue?

Quote from: J ArcaneGive it up.  I don't care.  I have no sympathy for bigotry, so trying to stir me to some great compassion to a guy who'd throw someone to the curb for sleeping with the wrong people is not really going to work.

Wow, that's a rather...prejudiced...view.  But, you know, your compassion is limited to the group with whom you agree, so that's cool; hip even. Some might call it progressive.

Quote from: J ArcaneSo tell me James, what would you say regarding an emplyer who refused to hire someone because he was black?

Or Native American?

Or Jewish?

Or Christian?

Well, in most cases I'd say he's an ass (I'd no more expect a Christian newsletter to hire a muslim writer or vice versa then I would the aforementioned example of a liberal think tank hiring a "neo-con").  And I would refuse to do business with him.  And I'd spread the word that he's and ass and that others shouldn't do business with him for the very same reason.

What I would not do is expect the government to handle the problem.  I'm not one who believes the government is the place to go for a solution except in very limited narrowly defined instances.  Otherwise, you end up with the government in everyone's business - hey, kinda like it is now!

QuoteWell, in most cases I'd say he's an ass (I'd no more expect a Christian newsletter to hire a muslim writer or vice versa then I would the aforementioned example of a liberal think tank hiring a "neo-con"). And I would refuse to do business with him. And I'd spread the word that he's and ass and that others shouldn't do business with him for the very same reason.

What I would not do is expect the government to handle the problem. I'm not one who believes the government is the place to go for a solution except in very limited narrowly defined instances. Otherwise, you end up with the government in everyone's business - hey, kinda like it is now!

So I suppose we should've just left segregation alone then, right?

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckNo you cant control how folks think but that doesnt mean religion trumps everything else.

Well, I certainly didn't say religion trumps everything else.  I do know that in America it currently trumps sexual orientation as freedom of religion is instantiated in the Constitution. Should it? It's a good debate to have, don't you think? Certainly not poluted with the idea that just because someone thinks homosexuality is wrong based on religious beliefs they are somehow not allowed to take part in the debate.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckI mean, Mormons weren't allowed into the union until they renounced polygamy...

Ironic, eh?

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckWhat if this goes beyond the person... is an employer allowed to fire a homosexual?

I don't see why not. I've seen stories of women being fired from teaching jobs because, in their private lives, they get wild and crazy in a bar and someone takes a picture.  People are fired for things they do in their personal lives all the time.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckA pharmacist allowed to not fill AZT prescriptions because people with AIDS are being punished?

If the pharmacist owns the pharmacy, I would think they should be able to dispense drugs as they see fit.  I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "I'm not carrying that product (the AZT drug) because I don't agree with the moral implications." I mean, should a devout muslim who owns a store be forced to carry Playboy? I wouldn't want to force him to.

At the same time, Walgreens should be able to fire a pharmacist who doesn't follow their policy.

Quote from: J ArcaneSo I suppose we should've just left segregation alone then, right?

Well you know how silly they looked in all those demonstrations, don't you think?

Quote from: James J SkachWell you know how silly they looked in all those demonstrations, don't you think?

So now we are comparing the screeching of bigots to Martin Luther King's rallies are we?

I believe in separation of church and state. So that, for example, a Catholic Bishop should not be able to be elected to the Senate without giving up his bishopric, and probably then only after seven years; no mosque should be able to donate money to a political party; nor should the Prime Minister's approval be required to appoint a Chief Rabbi of a state.

A civilised state must be in effect secular. That means that no faith ought to guide the state; but by the same token, no state ought to interfere in any faith, save only where that faith's members are violating the law. So you could not allow murder as "well, it's in our faith to cut out the still-beating heart of infidels." Faiths should be restricted by criminal law, but not by purely civil law. So you should be able to sue a priest for molesting you, but not for denying you the Eucharist.

A state should not impose its secularism on a faith, for people must have freedom of religion, just as they have freedom of speech. In general, all places of worship must be public places, anyone must be able to go there. But the place must not be obliged to welcome them, nor yet should what they say be prescribed or proscribed, except within the limits of the criminal law.

Church and state must remain separate, and freedom of speech and religion must remain. Churches, mosques and synagogues are public places; anyone, whatever their faith or race or sexuality, ought to be able to go there. If the place wants to restrict attendance, then they're no longer public, so they can give up their tax-free status. But those attending, they need not welcome and embrace, nor promote to be leaders of their congregations, still less should they be restricted in what they say because of their company.

If you support freedom of speech, then you must also support freedom of religion, they go hand-in-hand. Just as freedom of speech means freedom to say things which may offend or annoy us, so too does freedom of religion mean freedom to preach offensive or annoying things.

It's a shit, but there it is.

Now for the serious answer.

No. As I've stated before, discrimination by any government agency should not be tolerated.  The government should have no prejudice whatsoever. Who can get into a school, who can use which public drinking fountain, where someone can sit on a public bus.  All should have been dismantled.

It's why I think, for example, it's time for governments to revamp how they "licesne marriage." Unfortunately, the religious sanctioning and the state sanctioning of a marriage were intertwined.  It wasn't some evil thing, just the way America evolved. Now there marriage should be nothing more than a shorthand for a specific kind of civil contract.  The word marraige should be dropped from goverment vernacular and left to churches.

But that's a discussion we should have without the prejudice of calling people who don't believe homosexuals should be married due to religious tenets bigots because, you know, everyone thinks so.

The power of the civil rights demonstrations was to sway public opinion that not only should the idea of non-discrimination be instantiated in the government, but that it was immoral to discriminate based on race (color) in private as well. They conviced people. The mistake was in making that part of the law (with respect to private "transactions"). Might it have taken longer to reach a colorblind society?  Perhaps. But it wouldn't have ushered in/reinforced the idea that government can/should control how people think and act in their private lives.  It ends up in laws where, in Connecticut, you won't be able to smoke in your own car if you have your kids in the car with you.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf you support freedom of speech, then you must also support freedom of religion, they go hand-in-hand. Just as freedom of speech means freedom to say things which may offend or annoy us, so too does freedom of religion mean freedom to preach offensive or annoying things.

That's truly ironic, given the source. Still I can't say I disagree with the gist of your post. Well said.

These guys obviosuly are belivers in bigotry.

I'm not surprised to see muslims  doing this kind of shit, but I am disappointed that jews are doing it, it's really so much like the early days of nazi domination of germany, when anti-jew laws were slowly, incrementally, being introduced. You'd think they of all people would know what it feels like to be a persecuted and abused minority.

Also you'd think they'd understand the meaning of the famous "When they came for me there was no one left to speak up." bit too.

Quote from: Serious PaulThat's truly ironic, given the source. Still I can't say I disagree with the gist of your post. Well said.

I didn't say that I believed in freedom of speech, or freedom of religion; I said that if you believe in one, then you have to believe in the other.

I believe that freedom of speech may be reasonably limited in a number of ways for the public good. In general, speech should be limited when it's aiming at enabling or promoting criminal activities. The old "fighting words" is one example - you don't get to threaten people then claim "it's just words!" Incitement to riot, to racial hatred, etc, should also be restricted. Instructions on murderous activities like bomb-making, should also be restricted. Sympathetic and lurid or instructional  depictions of paedophilia should also be limited. Like I said - speech enabling or promoting criminal activities.

Speech may also be limited by venue. The middle of a Catholic church service is probably not the best time for me, a Jew, to stand up and talk about Christ's followers swiping his body and faking the Resurrection; dinner with the in-laws isn't the time for sex jokes; and a roleplaying game forum is not the place talk about - for example - religion and the law. If the church lets me talk about Jesus' body, or the in-laws let me make sex jokes, or the rpg forum lets me talk about religion and the law, that's simply a courtesy on their part, a courtesy they're in no way obliged to give, and which they can fairly withdraw at any time.

I don't believe in absolute freedom of speech, nor of religion. But if you believe in one, you must believe in the other.