|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How far to accommodate religious belief?
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
As far as I can tell, originally posted by Steve Langton:
Palimpsest; pay attention to my words and don't keep on and on attributing to me things I didn't in fact say - indeed rather carefully didn't say.
Are you saying that the second quote of your post I put in my post about your comments was not from you? Citing your text before pointing out the errors as about as much attention as I can give to your words?
I said you changed the demand for a cake into a demand for belief and that you termed that demand as illiberal and the equivalent to the acts of the Spanish Inquisition. Did you not do both of those things? They seem to be in the words of the quote.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Palimpsest;
quote:
I said you changed the demand for a cake into a demand for belief and that you termed that demand as illiberal and the equivalent to the acts of the Spanish Inquisition.
"You said..." I didn't. I haven't yet discussed that cake at all let alone turned the demand for it into something else. I'm asking rather more fundamental questions about what's going on here. Having now arrived home from a day out it's going to take me a while to catch up fully on what everyone's been saying - hopefully I'll be back tomorrow with a more worked out view on what you've all been saying.
Stop assuming that I'm your standard 'fundamentalist/Religious Right' kind of opponent - I'm not.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
It's all about cake - I think I've strayed into a thread on either baking or having your cake and eating it - possibly both.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Palimpsest;
quote:
I said you changed the demand for a cake into a demand for belief and that you termed that demand as illiberal and the equivalent to the acts of the Spanish Inquisition.
"You said..." I didn't. I haven't yet discussed that cake at all let alone turned the demand for it into something else. I'm asking rather more fundamental questions about what's going on here. Having now arrived home from a day out it's going to take me a while to catch up fully on what everyone's been saying - hopefully I'll be back tomorrow with a more worked out view on what you've all been saying.
Stop assuming that I'm your standard 'fundamentalist/Religious Right' kind of opponent - I'm not.
Stop assuming that I assume you're a standard 'fundamentalist/Religious Right' kind of opponent. I don't. I've read your posts before if you don't remember your exposition of the many types of "real" Christian.
It's your quote.
We were talking about the demand for cakes and you changed it to a demand for forced belief and compared it to the Spanish Inquisition. Are you claiming you don't compare the lawsuits to the Spanish Inquisition?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In a plural society, gay people should be entitled to their relationships including SSM. BUT, precisely because it is a plural society, they are not entitled to demand that everybody else believes that relationship to be proper or that everyone else must accept their interpretation of their condition/situation/etc. If they make that demand, this would then become a new kind of illiberal totalitarianism with the gays acting the part of the Spanish Inquisition imposing their views on others....
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Stop assuming that I'm your standard 'fundamentalist/Religious Right' kind of opponent - I'm not.
I'm not so sure about that. The assertion that same-sex couples are going to start murdering people who don't recognize the legality of their marriages sounds just like the kind of over-the-top 'fundamentalist/Religious Right' rhetoric we're familiar with (e.g. Scott Lively).
I'm still waiting for your explanation of how allowing individuals to decide the legality of other peoples' marriages isn't an anarchic rejection of the concept of law. After all, if the law is uniform for everyone, isn't that demanding "that everyone else must accept their interpretation of their condition/situation/etc."?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
There's a difference between compelling someone to produce a cake with a legal slogan inscribed and requiring the baker to produce pornographic cakes. The latter may not be legal in the jurisdiction of the bakery, especially if they employ minors.
The obvious, unstated framing assumption was that a porn cake was legal for the baker to produce, that he did not employ minors, and so on.
And under those assumptions, precisely what is the difference between asking the baker to produce a cake bearing legal slogans and artwork, and a cake bearing legal porn?
The only difference is that you think equal rights for gay people are important, but porn isn't. Which is fine, and I'd agree, but by making that statement, you impose your belief that equal rights for gay people is a good thing. And especially where the slogans in question are advocating equality that is currently illegal, I'm not sure that you can impose that belief in law.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Exactly. And, much as I agree with said belief, it becomes a frightening socio-political day when I get to impose my beliefs legally on others as a matter of course.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
I think the typical anti-discrimination laws of most western countries strike a good balance.
It's nice to let everyone have things their own way. But sometimes what people want comes into conflict. And for the most part we give providers of the services their freedom to refuse service (not that it's common for them to do so). So if you had a strong objection to people who are wearing hats, then you can choose to refuse all customers who walk in wearing a hat for example. That gives the individual service providers freedom to be as nutty as they like. It also gives them freedom to exercise moral judgment, such as to refuse to publish porn, or hate speech etc.
But when it becomes a problem is when a significant number of service providers all decide simultaneously that they want to reject the same group of customers based on who those customers are. (eg black people, gay people etc) It is when this discrimination effect becomes regular and cumulative that the problem occurs. The people being discriminated against begin to have their lives significantly affected - experiencing multiple instances of discrimination becomes humiliating and depressing and stressful. And perhaps worse than that is the ongoing worry and concern that they might be discriminated against at any time in the future - when buying groceries or going to a restaurant or booking a motel begins to carry with it the mental question of "will I be able to do this successfully or might the person refuse to serve me?" then you have gone a long way toward setting them to experiencing chronic stress and anxiety with all the accompanying negative health effects, and are reaching the point where you're basically destroying their lives and their ability to function in society when at every point in their day they have to question whether they will be able to accomplish basic tasks.
That is the purpose of anti-discrimination laws - to prevent massive damage to the lives of people who fall into the categories that significant numbers of people in society want to discriminate against. In order to prevent that significant harm to these people, it is necessary to (mildly) curb the freedoms of the people who otherwise would have discriminated, and thus say "yes, you will accept those people into your store and sell them your products" (how terrible for retailers, being forced to make profits by selling their products to customers! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ).
A lot of the people who want to discriminate don't think through the psychological damage that repeated occurrences of discrimination inflicts. I think if they really understood the amount of harm they were causing they wouldn't discriminate. And while it might be nice in theory to educate all those people to be more loving and empathetic, in practice it's easier just to ban discrimination.
For a lot of discrimination the connection between the alleged religious reason and the incident of discrimination itself tends to be somewhat tenuous. For example, no religion tells its adherents that they must be nasty to gay people. No teaching of Christianity says that Christians must or should openly express disdain, judgmentalism, condemnation and contempt toward gay people at all possible times, nor says that they must refuse to do business with gay people nor says that when gay people are celebrating a significant day in their lives that Christians are obligated to try to ruin the celebrations by expressing moral superiority and condemnation and making life difficult. Nothing about Christianity forbids Christians from being nice to gay people or gracious or kind. Nor does any part of Christianity require a person to express their moral judgement on others at all times. (Nor is it at all clear in Christian theology that for a gay couple to be married is worse than them not being married... usually the thinking is that the bible objects to gay sex, but endorses lifelong commitment in sexual relationships, so as far as Christian theology is concerned the choice for a couple having gay sex to enter into a lifelong commitment is a net good.)
Now when a gay person goes to a cake shop and says "hey I'm planning on celebrating what I hope will be the happiest day of my life, as I commit myself to the person I love, so I want to purchase a cake to use in the celebrations" they are not asking for a moral judgement on their life choices. The request is for you to bake a cake, it's not an invitation for you to set yourself up as judge and jury of any or all parts of their lives. You're not being asked to pass judgement on them, their partner, or their decision to commit to each other. If it was a heterosexual couple getting married, you wouldn't interpret the request to bake a wedding cake for them as an invitation to be the judge of whether they were marrying the right person for them or whether you should veto their marriage!! If you are being asked anything at all beyond to bake a cake, then the request is an invitation to share some small part in the happiest day of a person's life. They are celebrating a uniquely special day in their lives, and have asked you to contribute some small part of happiness to them by baking them an extra-awesome cake. To say, "well, actually I object to the reason for your happiness, and think you shouldn't be happy, and I'm going to object and do my best to take that away from you and deny you that" is sticking your nose ridiculously too far into what totally isn't your business and is being obsessively judgmental. None of that is mandated by Christian theology. So to claim you're refusing them service because of Christianity is absurd. You're refusing them service because you're a giant judgemental arsehole busybody the likes of which the world has rarely seen. All that your Christianity was providing was a moral disapproval of gay marriage. Christianity wasn't telling you to be a giant dick about it though, nor to express that disapproval in the direction of sabotaging other people's happiness to the best of your abilities.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
That line has been crossed years ago - we make a decision as to how far we have to protect people from others and from themselves and inevitably that has inbuilt assumptions. There was a great moral maze discussion last night on R4 which exposed the underbelly of the divide between legal, ethical and personal truths.
I have been looking at biology as a model for psychology in the past few years, and realised that in order to reverse fragmentation, the separated parts have to recognise they have a desirable and welcoming home in the core organiser, and the core has to recognise that the parts are of itself. And both have to have some belief that an unfragmented condition is more desirable that the current fragmented one. Otherwise we end up with chronic fragmentation, or even two organisms with mutually exclusive identities (and therefore exclusive immune systems - the immune system being a statement of biological identity). This also works (or doesn't) on a societal level. The prodigal son has to find his way home and be welcomed. There has to be redemption after punishment, just as there has to be contrition. When the punishment is undeserved (so contrition is inappropriate) or there is no real contrition, just fake - then it gets really really messy. None of this can be dealt with legally - it is individuals who have to be as good as they can be.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
and all of what starlight just said
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
As I have said, the sentiments quoted above, laudable though they are, do not fit the facts of the Belfast case.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I've prepared this since my last appearance on the thread late last night; I've not fully updated on where the thread has gone in the meantime, but given the nature of the point I'm raising I don't think that will actually matter...
This thread is basically not dealing with the underlying issue, and instead wasting time on nit-picking trivialities.
This whole issue – not just the gay issues part of it – has been distorted in the UK for centuries, and continues to be distorted, by the existence of an established religion. That also distorts the issue in many other countries – some with the same established religion as in the UK, others with different religions. That is the issue you should be discussing and only when that is properly discussed will there be a proper foundation for deciding the more detailed issues like who writes what on cakes.
With most of the world's religions, you're going to have a serious problem. Most of the world's religions are founded on the principle of being 'established' or equivalent. Some are narrowly nationalistic or ethnic, e.g. Shinto in Japan or Judaism in Israel; others are actually intended to 'take over the world' and impose their beliefs and morality everywhere, e.g. Islam whose founder set up an Islamic state by force of arms in his own lifetime. Such religions are not going to accommodate and it must be questionable whether they can be accommodated. And they're not likely to pay any attention to your bleating about your rights – in such a religion you don't have rights, you either conform or you are wrong and must be persecuted.
In the UK, the established religion is a form of Christianity, and it has been the resulting imposition of Christian morality by law which has given rise to the present discussion. Yet ironically, Christianity is one of the few religions in the world which, in its original New Testament form, rejects the notion of establishment. Christianity is emphatically meant to be a voluntary religion which seeks only to persuade and not coerce, and is pacifist in nature. So most of your 'problem' will go away if you tackle the issue of the establishment of Christianity and the assumption of a right to impose Christian morality that goes with that idea.
And in the case of Christianity, that issue can be tackled not by simple opposition as where a religion is 'established' or similar in nature. With Christianity, you can tackle the 'establishment' by calling on the Christians of the established churches to be truer to their faith, to in effect abandon a heresy. I'm afraid the disestablished church will still not agree that gay sex is morally proper – but the difficulties surrounding that will be of a decidedly different nature.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As I have said, the sentiments quoted above, laudable though they are, do not fit the facts of the Belfast case.
The Belfast case is a fairly basic example of the bakery breaking the discrimination law. Not really very interesting or controversial.
For the reasons I outlined, it is good to have non-discrimination laws to prevent severe cumulative harm occurring to targeted groups of people. In general retailers have the freedom to not sell anything they like, except in the small group of categories where the law says they can't discriminate. The Belfast case was clearly an instance of discrimination relating to sexuality (a moral objection to same-sex marriage), and hence not legal.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This whole issue – not just the gay issues part of it – has been distorted in the UK for centuries, and continues to be distorted, by the existence of an established religion.
I'm not at all convinced that having an established religion really makes that much of a difference. These issues still exist in countries that officially have no established religion.
quote:
Yet ironically, Christianity is one of the few religions in the world which, in its original New Testament form, rejects the notion of establishment. Christianity is emphatically meant to be a voluntary religion which seeks only to persuade and not coerce, and is pacifist in nature.
Hmm, says you, but for the vast majority of its history Christianity seems to have done its absolute best to be an established religion. I guess you can label all those people "Not True Christians", but at a certain point you've sort of got to admit that "Christianity" as a whole is defined by total bulk of its adherents.
quote:
I'm afraid the disestablished church will still not agree that gay sex is morally proper
Comparing the rate at which increasing numbers of Christians are becoming accepting of gay sex (ie rapidly), with the rate at which the Church of England is being disestablished (ie snail's pace), leads me to almost absolute certainty that gay sex will be considered morally proper by virtually all Christians long long before the church is ever disestablished.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As I have said, the sentiments quoted above, laudable though they are, do not fit the facts of the Belfast case.
The Belfast case is a fairly basic example of the bakery breaking the discrimination law. Not really very interesting or controversial.
For the reasons I outlined, it is good to have non-discrimination laws to prevent severe cumulative harm occurring to targeted groups of people. In general retailers have the freedom to not sell anything they like, except in the small group of categories where the law says they can't discriminate. The Belfast case was clearly an instance of discrimination relating to sexuality (a moral objection to same-sex marriage), and hence not legal.
I don't think so: they were asked to publish a slogan with which they vociferously disagreed. Now, we can disagree with their...er..disagreement, but refusal to print a socio-political slogan does not amount to discrimination against persons, anymore than a Catholic baker refusing to produce a cake with the words 'Fuck the Pope' on it discriminates against Protestants.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Starlight;
quote:
I'm not at all convinced that having an established religion really makes that much of a difference. These issues still exist in countries that officially have no established religion.
The issues still exist anywhere - though if you're thinking of the USA their non-establishment is rather anomalous. It still remains a fact that establishment and general 'Christian country' attitudes have distorted the issues here and continue to do so.
and again;
quote:
Hmm, says you, but for the vast majority of its history Christianity seems to have done its absolute best to be an established religion. I guess you can label all those people "Not True Christians", but at a certain point you've sort of got to admit that "Christianity" as a whole is defined by total bulk of its adherents.
No, over the history of Christianity a lot of governments have done their best to use Christianity as an established religion and too many Christians have thoughtlessly gone along with it.
To avoid tripping over hypothetical Scotsmen let's say 'inconsistent Christians' rather than 'not True Christians..' No, Christianity is not defined by the bulk of its nominal adherents, it is defined by the original teaching; and given that the original teaching is a great deal more in your favour than the establishment heresy, why are you so ready to dismiss it?
and yet again;
quote:
Comparing the rate at which increasing numbers of Christians are becoming accepting of gay sex (ie rapidly), with the rate at which the Church of England is being disestablished (ie snail's pace), leads me to almost absolute certainty that gay sex will be considered morally proper by virtually all Christians long long before the church is ever disestablished.
Actually disestablishment is almost a done deal - just unlikely to happen in the lifetime of the present Queen. And what is said either way by people at the top of Anglicanism - or other churches - doesn't necessarily reflect the grass-roots.
And you don't mention what you will or can do about Islamic State.... Nor what you will do if there is a Christian revival which would inevitably mean a return to biblical standards. And that's biblical standards, not pathetically unscholarly re-interpretations of Romans 1, by the way.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Croesos;
quote:
The assertion that same-sex couples are going to start murdering people who don't recognize the legality of their marriages
Don't recall saying that anywhere, strangely enough. But yes, I'm getting the strong impression that the assorted gay lobby are quite happy to see those who disagree with them made subject to legal penalties of the less barbaric modern kind - which would in principle be essentially the same thing the Inquisition did. Again, please stop imputing to me things I haven't actually said. Not allowing people to disagree is exactly what Inquisitions and the like are about.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...I'm getting the strong impression that the assorted gay lobby are quite happy to see those who disagree with them made subject to legal penalties of the less barbaric modern kind - which would in principle be essentially the same thing the Inquisition did.
Steve, your views seem inconsistent to me - on the one hand you want Christianity and churches to be independent from the state (and I'm with you on this), but you want the state to enforce your particular take on sexual morality. On what basis should your personal beliefs override the wish of some within the 'gay lobby' to marry someone of the same sex?
As I understand it, very few people are proposing legal penalties for people who simply believe same-sex marriage to be wrong and who wish to take no part in it. The penalties only come when one treats people differently based on the sex of their partner. Do you think you should be allowed to treat people differently based on the sex of their partner?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Croesos again;
quote:
I'm still waiting for your explanation of how allowing individuals to decide the legality of other peoples' marriages isn't an anarchic rejection of the concept of law. After all, if the law is uniform for everyone, isn't that demanding "that everyone else must accept their interpretation of their condition/situation/etc."?
I'm not so much allowing individuals to decide the legality of other people's marriages, as saying that they must have a right to disagree about the morality as I think could be the case with polygamy as a related example.
Stepping aside from marriage pro tem, I accept, for example, the legality of the National Lottery - but I also strongly disapprove of it, won't take part in it, and will when necessary express my disagreement and the reasons thereof. And surely a plural society allows me to do that....
However right now I'm not trying to deal with the detail outworkings of the matter; I'm trying to put a slightly different balance about the fundamental question. If we resolve that then we can go on to apply it to the details.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by South Coast Kevin;
quote:
...but you want the state to enforce your particular take on sexual morality. On what basis should your personal beliefs override the wish of some within the 'gay lobby' to marry someone of the same sex?
Just to be clear, I am NOT wanting the state to enforce my particular take at all. I am quite happy for there to be SSM in the state for those who believe in it, and polygamy for Mormons and Muslims for that matter. I'm just not happy that either is moral in Christian terms, or that the proponents of either should have a right to tell me I can't disagree with them, or that they should have a right to trample on my conscience. I'm actually committed to being as accommodating as possible but worried that things are currently swinging
from a totalitarianism one way to a totalitarianism the other way - and this is a case where two wrongs would not make a right.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
A lot of the people who want to discriminate don't think through the psychological damage that repeated occurrences of discrimination inflicts. I think if they really understood the amount of harm they were causing they wouldn't discriminate.
I think this is overly optimistic. In a lot of cases the harm is known, deliberate, and intentional. A lot of the anti-gay crowd believe that being gay is a choice and that if gay people can be made to suffer enough for being gay, they'll give it up and choose to be straight instead. Another subset just doesn't like gay people and wants to make life as hard for them as possible just on general principle.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Hmm, says you, but for the vast majority of its history Christianity seems to have done its absolute best to be an established religion. I guess you can label all those people "Not True Christians", but at a certain point you've sort of got to admit that "Christianity" as a whole is defined by total bulk of its adherents.
No, over the history of Christianity a lot of governments have done their best to use Christianity as an established religion and too many Christians have thoughtlessly gone along with it.
To avoid tripping over hypothetical Scotsmen let's say 'inconsistent Christians' rather than 'not True Christians..' No, Christianity is not defined by the bulk of its nominal adherents, it is defined by the original teaching; and given that the original teaching is a great deal more in your favour than the establishment heresy, why are you so ready to dismiss it?
Is this "pay attention to what we say, not what we do" standard one that you'd apply to any other school of thought? (e.g. Communism)
quote:
No, [Communism] is not defined by the bulk of its nominal adherents, it is defined by the original teaching . . . which is why real Communism leads to a workers' paradise, not a totalitarian state.
Plus given the fact that the New Testament indicates early dissenters within the church met grisly ends and instilled "great fear" in the rest of the flock, I'm not sure your case for non-establishment holds.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Croesos;
quote:
The assertion that same-sex couples are going to start murdering people who don't recognize the legality of their marriages
Don't recall saying that anywhere, strangely enough. But yes, I'm getting the strong impression that the assorted gay lobby are quite happy to see those who disagree with them made subject to legal penalties of the less barbaric modern kind - which would in principle be essentially the same thing the Inquisition did.
Sorry, not following you. Under what "principle" is forcing an employer to extend the same benefits to a same-sex married couple as they do to opposite-sex marrieds "essentially the same" as torturing a confession out of someone and burning them at the stake?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Croesos again;
quote:
I'm still waiting for your explanation of how allowing individuals to decide the legality of other peoples' marriages isn't an anarchic rejection of the concept of law. After all, if the law is uniform for everyone, isn't that demanding "that everyone else must accept their interpretation of their condition/situation/etc."?
I'm not so much allowing individuals to decide the legality of other people's marriages, as saying that they must have a right to disagree about the morality as I think could be the case with polygamy as a related example.
Why not? Isn't having a uniform legal code demanding "that everyone else must accept their interpretation of their condition/situation/etc." (in this case that their relationship is a legally valid marriage)? Why is it okay to "force" someone to agree that a marriage is legally valid? This seems to contradict your original statement on the matter.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Just to be clear, I am NOT wanting the state to enforce my particular take at all. I am quite happy for there to be SSM in the state for those who believe in it, and polygamy for Mormons and Muslims for that matter. I'm just not happy that either is moral in Christian terms, or that the proponents of either should have a right to tell me I can't disagree with them, or that they should have a right to trample on my conscience.
Okay, thanks. Genuine question then - in what way are you being told you can't disagree with those who think SSM is fine, and in what way is your conscience being trampled on?
ISTM all that gay people who wish to marry their same-sex partner want is the right for their partnership to be considered 'normal' and treated the same as a woman-man partnership. What exactly is it that you object to, Steve?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Steve Langton - either people in same-sex marriages are equal to others or not. You can't have it both ways.
By law they are equal.
You are, of course, allowed to think otherwise.
What you are not allowed to do, however, is to discriminate against them - whether as part of a public or private business or service. Is that clear enough?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Boogie;
quote:
By law they are equal.
And in Christian morality they clearly are not equal. So how do we resolve that?
And before you become yet another person telling me what I do believe when I don't necessarily believe it at all, I'm not giving my personal answer at this point, I'm asking you for yours.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Croesos;
quote:
Why not? Isn't having a uniform legal code demanding "that everyone else must accept their interpretation of their condition/situation/etc." (in this case that their relationship is a legally valid marriage)? Why is it okay to "force" someone to agree that a marriage is legally valid? This seems to contradict your original statement on the matter.
And if the legal code demands that 'everyone' consider Jews inferior, and hand them over to be sent to the camps? I assume in that situation you'd want me to take a moral stance against the law?
The law is human and fallible; and one of the reasons why a plural society is better is because it ultimately hinders such bad law, precisely by allowing dissent and disagreement.
And would you mind giving some serious thought to what it means that Christians believe in separation of Church and State?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Boogie;
quote:
By law they are equal.
And in Christian morality they clearly are not equal. So how do we resolve that?
By realizing that the legal code is not the same thing as your personal moral code?
As observed by the blog Lawyers, Guns, and Money, the idea that businesses serving the general public are free to arbitrarily discriminate as to which members of the public will be served is a relatively recent aberration in the common law tradition.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And would you mind giving some serious thought to what it means that Christians believe in separation of Church and State?
Yes, it means some of them are able to hold political opinions not endorsed anywhere in the Bible.
[ 23. October 2014, 16:42: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As observed by the blog Lawyers, Guns, and Money, the idea that businesses serving the general public are free to arbitrarily discriminate as to which members of the public will be served is a relatively recent aberration in the common law tradition.
Yeah, well, so is the recognition of marital rape. (One can even quote Blackstone in support of the common law rule: "By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law; that is the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband ...") Which just goes to support Steve Langton's point that morality can recognize a distinction that the law doesn't.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
Which just goes to support Steve Langton's point that morality can recognize a distinction that the law doesn't.
Not necessarily. Morality can recognize a distinction that the law doesn't, but virtually every moral position can be enacted as law. I'm also not sure that's particularly germane to SL's argument, which seems to be that a law calling for the murder of Jews is abhorrent, but if your personal moral code tells you to murder the Jewish couple next door . . . well, shouldn't all sincerely believed moral codes be accommodated?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Boogie;
quote:
By law they are equal.
And in Christian morality they clearly are not equal. So how do we resolve that?
We look anew at 'Christian morality'. Just as we have for many other issues. We bring 'Christian morality' into line with what is actually good and right.
But I don't understand why you are asking the question. Your assumptions about what Christians believe are rather sweeping imo. I am sure you know that many, many Christians do not believe that there is anything whatever immoral about same sex marriage. They can also defend their position very well theologically.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Exactly. And, much as I agree with said belief, it becomes a frightening socio-political day when I get to impose my beliefs legally on others as a matter of course.
The requester of the cake was not forcing their belief on the baker. A cake baked is not an endorsement made. A baker is judged by the appearance and taste of their goods. Their "moral" beliefs enter the picture when they refuse. When they consent, notice is rare. quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
they were asked to publish a slogan with which they vociferously disagreed. Now, we can disagree with their...er..disagreement, but refusal to print a socio-political slogan does not amount to discrimination against persons,
How does it not? If they refused all political slogans, an argument could be made. That the owner himself said gay marriage was the issue makes this a discrimination case.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
anymore than a Catholic baker refusing to produce a cake with the words 'Fuck the Pope' on it discriminates against Protestants.
Let's unpack this. Fuck is a moderated word. Most countries, NI included, have guidelines as to when it is appropriate to use. So the word itself could be eliminated from a baker's offerings.
'Fuck the Pope' is a statement of animosity, so then could also be eliminated.
'Fuck the Pope' is not a statement limited to Protestants. Not even close.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Steve, now this is what I assumed you would do. You're pursuing your theory that a magic Kind early Christianity will solve all problems in all threads. The last time you brought this up in talking about violence, you admitted that Christianity wasn't that way at the time the Romans adopted it after I cited the lynching of Hypatia. Let's go back a bit further and look at the Gospel of John where the blame for the Crucifixion is changed to be "The Jews" as opposed to earlier Gospels which did not slander them as a group. There is no such benevolent early Christianity at the time of the end of the writing of the New Testament. It's harder to go earlier, but having the Patriarchs of different cities arguing with each other probably pushes it further. Did your superior form of Christianity exist for very long after the death of Jesus? It's hard to distinguish non-violence from just being a powerless oppressed group of victims, but it seems that at the first point that Christians came to power, they started doing bad things.
If the Christians had abjured converting Rome and establishing the Patriarchs, why do you think they would have had more influence on the world than any other sect of the period, e.g. the Essenes? Their success depended on their methods. And even if you do believe a marvelous Christianity could be established, why would it not degenerate into what Christianity degenerated into in less than a few centuries? Do you think you're better than Jesus and his disciples In preventing that?
To go back to the main discussion, I note that without conceding my criticism, and after having looked up the Spanish Inquisition and lecturing the rest of us on it, you seem to be tiptoing away from quote:
this would then become a new kind of illiberal totalitarianism with the gays acting the part of the Spanish Inquisition imposing their views on others....
to
quote:
I'm getting the strong impression that the assorted gay lobby are quite happy to see those who disagree with them made subject to legal penalties of the less barbaric modern kind - which would in principle be essentially the same thing the Inquisition did.
So when you say by dictate of Steve Langton
quote:
No, Christianity is not defined by the bulk of its nominal adherents, it is defined by the original teaching;
as opposed to say, letting those many people define the term Christianity for themselves.
isn't that in principal essentially the same as the Spanish Inquisition on your part? Can't you smell the flesh burning? Or would that be gross hyperbole? Would it be better to define a specific term for what you imagine rather than trying to Humpty Dumpty the term Christianity?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It's been a while since I posted on this thread, but I wanted to ask:
What about workers in an industrial setting or construction site who want to stop and do their Islamic prayers? Is this something that should be accommodated? Or the Christian who wants to avoid the Sunday work shift to attend mass or church?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Palimpsest;
quote:
So when you say by dictate of Steve Langton
quote:
No, Christianity is not defined by the bulk of its nominal adherents, it is defined by the original teaching; (unquote)
as opposed to say, letting those many people define the term Christianity for themselves.
isn't that in principal essentially the same as the Spanish Inquisition on your part? Can't you smell the flesh burning? Or would that be gross hyperbole? Would it be better to define a specific term for what you imagine rather than trying to Humpty Dumpty the term Christianity?
Not by 'dictate of Steve Langton'; simply the obvious that the original teaching of Jesus and his immediate followers is Christianity, people coming along later contradicting that are not expressing authentic Christianity. If you believe Jesus is the Son of God, contradicting him is a bad idea. If a Christian can show that his understanding is in line with and a legitimate development of the original, great, I'm open to persuasion. But, for example, the line of thought that led via Constantine to the Inquisition can't show that legitimate development.
Muhammad claimed Jesus (or attempted to) as a Muslim prophet under the name Isa - yet the Quran account of Isa varies considerably from the NT account by the eyewitness apostles and their close associates; should I really accept the Muhammadan account from 600 years later and hundreds of miles away over the account by people who were so much closer to the event? Should I let Muhammad tell me what, in effect, Jesus should have said, rather than accept the account of what he did say according to people in a much better position to know? And if by ordinary historical interpretation principles I prefer the early church over Muhammad, likewise with later Christians who think they know better than the original. Not my dictate, ordinary use of historical evidence.
And no, you won't be smelling the flesh burning around me (unless it's other people like Spanish Inquisitors burning me myself); My point is precisely that Christianity is voluntary and that I don't want to have the power of the state to use against either errant Christians or recalcitrant pagans.
I won't deal with the point in full now - I'm a bit swamped with other circumstances this week - but part of the answer to your point about 'the Jews' in John's gospel is that of course most people mentioned by John were in our terms Jewish. But those who opposed Jesus were almost entirely 'Judeans' as against 'Galileans'; John is not saying 'the Jews' were to blame for Jesus' death - he was after all an ethnic Jew himself - he seems to be saying something more like "There were these southerners..." Only much later could it be taken otherwise.
by Palimpsest;
quote:
Christianity wasn't that way at the time the Romans adopted it
More accurately, Christianity was changed and corrupted AFTER and BECAUSE the Romans adopted it.
Also;
quote:
but it seems that at the first point that Christians came to power, they started doing bad things.
And it's precisely because of that temptation and other problems that arise from the state/church link that the original teaching set forth a different way of doing things.
by no prophet's...
quote:
What about workers in an industrial setting or construction site who want to stop and do their Islamic prayers? Is this something that should be accommodated? Or the Christian who wants to avoid the Sunday work shift to attend mass or church?
I personally would want to do my best to accommodate people of another religion who wanted prayer time, holy days off, etc. It is or should be less of a problem to and with biblical Christians - see Colossians 2;16.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Boogie;
quote:
We look anew at 'Christian morality'. Just as we have for many other issues. We bring 'Christian morality' into line with what is actually good and right.
But I don't understand why you are asking the question. Your assumptions about what Christians believe are rather sweeping imo. I am sure you know that many, many Christians do not believe that there is anything whatever immoral about same sex marriage. They can also defend their position very well theologically.
Christians are constantly looking anew at 'Christian morality'; but not to change it to a supposedly 'actually good and right', it doesn't need changing. The check is to make sure that (unlike, say, the Spanish Inquisition) we are in line with the good and right original.
I'm still waiting for a 'well-defended' exposition of gay sex being OK for Christians (which is a different issue to tolerating it as something the surrounding pagan world does). And I don't just read books I agree with, I do check out other views.
The Bible is in fact quite positive about LOVE between people of the same sex - see the example of David and Jonathan, particularly the statement in II Sam 1;26. But it also seems to say that such love should not, as far as God is concerned, be physically expressed by, in effect, an imitation of heterosexual intercourse.
Modern views have been somewhat skewed by Puritan/Victorian attitudes which were somewhat against the physical generally and became further exaggerated in relation to homosexuality by the Oscar Wilde scandal. As far as I can see the Bible would in fact permit considerable physical expression of love between men; but not 'the whole way' for want of a better phrase in a currently tiring mind.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
only just found this one by Croesos;
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And would you mind giving some serious thought to what it means that Christians believe in separation of Church and State?
Croesos response;
Yes, it means some of them are able to hold political opinions not endorsed anywhere in the Bible.
Talk about getting everything wrong end round and upside-down...!!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
if you're thinking of the USA their non-establishment is rather anomalous.
I was thinking of NZ, Aus, Canada, the US etc. Lots of countries don't have established religion.
quote:
Christianity is not defined by the bulk of its nominal adherents, it is defined by the original teaching; and given that the original teaching is a great deal more in your favour than the establishment heresy, why are you so ready to dismiss it?
The question of what the "original teachings" of Christianity were is extremely controversial. I doubt you and I would at all agree on what they were despite us both having spent years studying them. What we can probably both agree on is that a significant majority of Christians in history have significantly deviated from the original teachings of Christianity.
From a practical socio-political standpoint, the pure ideals of the original teachings of Christianity are somewhat irrelevant, and far more important is what the people who consider themselves Christians are actually doing in the present day. Otherwise, as Croesos has mentioned, it's a bit like putting your hands over your ears and insisting that the original ideals of Communism were pure and that Communism is actually great and that all the Communists don't actually represent true Communism.
I am somewhat sympathetic to your approach because when gay rights issues were first brought to my attention I just mentally labelled anyone who rejected gay rights as not a true Christian. Eventually the sheer number of Christians who were against gay rights made me accept that 'Christianity' as practiced in the present day was against gay rights regardless of its original values and teachings, and that I personally didn't really get to define 'true Christianity' myself based on my own reading of scripture, and that instead I had to accept that the bulk of its adherents were indeed representative of 'Christianity'.
quote:
And you don't mention what you will or can do about Islamic State
?huh?
Obviously I'll crush them like a bug with my little finger. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
Nor what you will do if there is a Christian revival which would inevitably mean a return to biblical standards.
I would probably be so truly surprised shocked and amazed at that happening that I would be unable to do anything except stand there with my mouth gaping for days on end.
quote:
And that's biblical standards, not pathetically unscholarly re-interpretations of Romans 1, by the way.
I take it you don't like my interpretation of Rom 1? ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
quote:
I'm getting the strong impression that the assorted gay lobby are quite happy to see those who disagree with them made subject to legal penalties of the less barbaric modern kind
Okay, stop right there!
You're incredibly quick to point to significant differences between Christian groups in their views on these issues. And you keep repeating that not all Christians have the establishment views that are publicly expressed, especially not the 'true' Christians. Please have the courtesy and common sense to realize that individual gay people equally hold a range of views. There is no such thing as a single gay viewpoint on any issue - unlike Christianity gay people don't have an authoritative text so there's not even any basic reason why they should or ought to have a unified viewpoint. I know it's extremely tempting to stereotype one's opposition into a single viewpoint and to see them as out to get you. But in practice gay people squabble every bit as much as Christians do. (Recent arguments I've had with other gay people include subjects such as: biblical interpretation; whether it would be good or bad overall if homosexuality was proven to have a significant genetic component; and what political party to vote for) As in all things the extremists tend to raise their voices the loudest. But don't make the mistake of thinking the couple of voices you hear are representative of a uniform viewpoint. Likewise if a newspaper happened to interview two Christian fundamentalists you wouldn't want all the readers to believe that they spoke as representatives of a unified Christianity. Please extend to gay people the same courtesy you're repeatedly demanding they extend to you - recognize that they aren't all the same as each other and don't have a unified 'gay lobby' any more than you are a part of the unified 'Christianity'.
As far as gay issues go, I'm an extremist. As far as the continuum along which gay people's views on law tend to fall, I'm at an extreme end insofar as I tend to think that the law can and should be used to maximally protect gay people and their basic rights to the point of beginning to significantly affect the freedoms of religious people who try to infringe on those rights, and as such would like to see stronger laws in place than most countries have been willing to enact. Not all gay people agree. I have strongly held opinions and speak for myself as an individual, but am not speaking on behalf of all gay people, nor are my words representative of them. I am not part of any political advocacy group, nor do I have any power to enforce my opinions on others. My words and opinions are not representative of any hypothetical non-existent unified 'gay lobby'.
The 'less barbaric' modern penalties of fines that you mention that some gay people would like to see imposed, are not really comparable with torture and burning at the stake that the Christian Inquisition used to impose on gay people.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm still waiting for a 'well-defended' exposition of gay sex being OK for Christians (which is a different issue to tolerating it as something the surrounding pagan world does). And I don't just read books I agree with, I do check out other views.
The Bible is in fact quite positive about LOVE between people of the same sex - see the example of David and Jonathan, particularly the statement in II Sam 1;26. But it also seems to say that such love should not, as far as God is concerned, be physically expressed by, in effect, an imitation of heterosexual intercourse.
Well, at risk of getting off topic, I would point out that I am utterly convinced that David and Jonathan are intentionally depicted as same-sex lovers by the author of the books of Samuel (a view which appears to be shared by the majority of commentators in the last couple of decades or so). To reach this conclusion requires a certain level of background knowledge in terms of familiarly with how other sources in the ancient world depict same sex relationships, so I can completely understand how most people can read the story of David and Jonathan and simply not see a gay relationship. However there seems to be very high level of agreement among people familiar with other depictions of same-sex relationships in the ancient world to the effect that the author of Samuel is indeed intentionally depicting them as lovers.
I would point out that this is another one of those areas gay people are not in widespread agreement about. Orfeo, for example, seems to get very upset whenever I mention my view that David and Jonathan are deliberately depicted by the bible as being in a relationship, because he seems to strong disagree with my biblical interpretation, and also seems to feel that making such arguments hurts the push for gay rights in the present day.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I won't deal with the point in full now - I'm a bit swamped with other circumstances this week - but part of the answer to your point about 'the Jews' in John's gospel is that of course most people mentioned by John were in our terms Jewish. But those who opposed Jesus were almost entirely 'Judeans' as against 'Galileans'; John is not saying 'the Jews' were to blame for Jesus' death - he was after all an ethnic Jew himself - he seems to be saying something more like "There were these southerners..." Only much later could it be taken otherwise.
You might plausibly argue he meant by Jews he meant Judeans or Pharisees, but to make it "some southerners" that would be "some Jews" not "the Jews.
I'm only reading English translations, so if you have a Greek, Aramaic or Latin source that shows an indefinite quantity, I sincerely would be very interested in learning about it. Otherwise, I'm going to interpret "the" as "all" as did all the later nasty establishment Christians.
Excepting the partial qualifier you threw in, your defense of your special early Christianity is that the group he was slandering in it's entirety as the killers of Christ was a smaller ethnic or religious group than all the Jews. That is not much of an improvement.
The argument that John was an ethnic Jew ignores that it's not clear the author of the Gospel was actually John and not his followers and the first records of that Gospel roughly coincide with the Christians convincing the Romans in 96 CE that they weren't Jews and hence didn't have to pay the tax on Jews.
While it gets much worse later after the Roman adoption, it looks like rot was already there in John (and maybe Matthew) and that was before its establishment as a Roman state religion. Are you arguing that the evil corruption of establishment set in at the point of the first Bishop of Jerusalem?
If you accept that the anti-Semitism of the latter Gospels was not part of your really good early Christianity, then the magic is actually gone well before the Christians took power as an establishment religion and before they finished writing the New Testament. If you think those Gospels are the product of this ideal Christianity, it's not much different than the later state religion you dislike, lacking only the power to oppress.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
There's a difference between compelling someone to produce a cake with a legal slogan inscribed and requiring the baker to produce pornographic cakes. The latter may not be legal in the jurisdiction of the bakery, especially if they employ minors.
The obvious, unstated framing assumption was that a porn cake was legal for the baker to produce, that he did not employ minors, and so on.
And under those assumptions, precisely what is the difference between asking the baker to produce a cake bearing legal slogans and artwork, and a cake bearing legal porn?
The only difference is that you think equal rights for gay people are important, but porn isn't. Which is fine, and I'd agree, but by making that statement, you impose your belief that equal rights for gay people is a good thing. And especially where the slogans in question are advocating equality that is currently illegal, I'm not sure that you can impose that belief in law.
Porn is a tricky area. The existence of gay people has been often been classified as adult only or pornography especially in states with those Christian bakers. For example,the MPAA accused of homophobia for rating a gay relationship film for viewers over 17 only.
If providing a wedding cake for a same sex marriage is producing pornography, then yes, Bakers should be forced to make pornography. Otherwise, a lovely tangent on what is "legal" pornography is required and if it requires the baker to restrict minors from seeing it.
In general, people have the right to advocate things which are currently illegal in one state but are legal in another state. That comes under the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. constitution and lawsuits are underway. If you think about it, it's also a requirement of a democracy allowing people to advocate changes in the laws that they have the freedom of speech to advocate things which are currently illegal. (admittedly the current anti terrorism laws abrogate that right.)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Exactly. And, much as I agree with said belief, it becomes a frightening socio-political day when I get to impose my beliefs legally on others as a matter of course.
The requester of the cake was not forcing their belief on the baker.
To you, maybe; clearly not to them. And as they're on the receiving end of the demand, I think their perception should be given greater weight. quote:
A cake baked is not an endorsement made.
Same comment. quote:
A baker is judged by the appearance and taste of their goods. Their "moral" beliefs enter the picture when they refuse. When they consent, notice is rare.
What do you mean by this? quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
they were asked to publish a slogan with which they vociferously disagreed. Now, we can disagree with their...er..disagreement, but refusal to print a socio-political slogan does not amount to discrimination against persons,
How does it not?
For this to be the case, you would have to demonstrate that only gay people would order such a slogan to be printed. Given that a heck of a lot of straight people support gay marriage too, I think that suggestion is dead in the water! quote:
If they refused all political slogans, an argument could be made.
Yes, they would have been wiser to have said that or at least a statement along the lines of "the owners reserve the right to ice statements as their discretion" quote:
That the owner himself said gay marriage was the issue makes this a discrimination case.
Holding a view is not the same as discriminating against persons; it was made clear IIRC that he was not refusing to serve the customer because he was gay but refusing to serve a product with a particular endorsement on it which was in conflict with his beliefs.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
anymore than a Catholic baker refusing to produce a cake with the words 'Fuck the Pope' on it discriminates against Protestants.
Let's unpack this. Fuck is a moderated word. Most countries, NI included, have guidelines as to when it is appropriate to use. So the word itself could be eliminated from a baker's offerings.
'Fuck the Pope' is a statement of animosity, so then could also be eliminated.
'Fuck the Pope' is not a statement limited to Protestants. Not even close.
OK, let's make it easier then: what about "Catholicism is a false demonic religion" or "the Pope is the Antichrist". Do you still think a devout Catholic baker should have to bake such a cake??!!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Palimpsest;
quote:
You might plausibly argue he meant by Jews he meant Judeans or Pharisees, but to make it "some southerners" that would be "some Jews" not "the Jews.
If you want to discuss anti-semitism I think we need to do it on a separate thread; and give me a bit of a break before starting that thread, I've barely time at present for adequate responses on this thread.
I did say that point was a partial answer to yours. Just for further clarification, the Greek uses the word 'ioudaioi' which is ambiguous between the meaning 'Jews in general' and the narrower 'Judeans as distinct from Galileans'. John, a Jew himself, using the word as he does strongly implies that the latter version must be meant. There's a degree of similar slight confusion in Luke where he seems to make not an ethnic but a religious distinction between Jews and Christians - a distinction the Jews would, I think, have approved of. The article ('the') is used in a different way in Greek to English and does not necessarily carry a 'THE Jews/all Jews' emphasis you suggest.
Yes, John's Gospel is clearly not written by him personally, as witness the 'appendix' of ch 21 almost certainly written after John's death. I think he used colleagues whose Greek was better than his own.
I can't see that there would be any intention to persecute Jews, as that would conflict with Jesus' teaching including what John himself records. You are perhaps forgetting that in the late NT period it was the Jews who were persecuting peaceable Christians, and using the Romans to do it at least until the Jewish Revolts changed that balance.
by P again;
quote:
it's not much different than the later state religion you dislike, lacking only the power to oppress.
No, not lacking the 'power' to oppress, the whole point is that they had an anti-oppressive theology, predicated on separation from the state and living as peaceable 'resident aliens', and therefore did not seek to oppress. On the contrary, they risked oppression and right up to such figures as St George shortly before Constantine, were willing to die but emphatically NOT kill for their faith.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Just to be clear, I am NOT wanting the state to enforce my particular take at all. I am quite happy for there to be SSM in the state for those who believe in it, and polygamy for Mormons and Muslims for that matter. I'm just not happy that either is moral in Christian terms, or that the proponents of either should have a right to tell me I can't disagree with them, or that they should have a right to trample on my conscience. I'm actually committed to being as accommodating as possible but worried that things are currently swinging from a totalitarianism one way to a totalitarianism the other way - and this is a case where two wrongs would not make a right.
Oh, the brutal totalitarianism of expecting all people to be treated equally! Will no one stand up for these brave martyrs? How can a country be truly free when people face minor legal sanctions for gratuitously inserting their warped morality into a simple baking transaction? Etc, etc, ad nauseam.
Boil it down, strip out the whataboutery, and that's what this is about - supporting the right of anyone to discriminate against certain people in providing your services. It's not about being forced to provide a service, but about not discriminating over a service you have chosen to provide. Imagine the howls of outrage if the conversation had gone like this:
"Hi, we'd like to order a cake for our wedding."
"Sure, no problem. When do you need it?"
"On the 14th, but we'd need to pick it up early, while we're getting the church ready."
"Church - does that mean you're Christians?"
"Yes. Is that a problem?"
"I can't stand Christians. Your homophobia is thoroughly immoral. Get out of my shop."
The Christian Institute would be onto it quicker than you could say "shit-stirring bigots".
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Steve Langton - I know you're busy but I'd really appreciate a quick answer on this point:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
ISTM all that gay people who wish to marry their same-sex partner want is the right for their partnership to be considered 'normal' and treated the same as a woman-man partnership. What exactly is it that you object to, Steve?
No one is suggesting that you must take part in same-sex marriage or sexual activity, so what is it that you object to? In what way is (what you consider to be) Christian morality being trampled on, now that SSM is legal and discrimination based on sexual orientation is (in most circumstances) illegal?
EDIT - cross-posted with The Great Gumby. Nice illustration!
[ 24. October 2014, 10:59: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In general, people have the right to advocate things which are currently illegal in one state but are legal in another state.
Or, indeed, things which are currently illegal in all states. The question is not whether I (should) have the right to advocate for a change in the law, it's whether I (should) have the right to force your business to support me in that advocacy.
For example, say you're a printer. Are you allowed to refuse to print leaflets for the BNP? Are you allowed to refuse to print material advocating the forcible expulsion of illegal immigrants, or advocating the granting of a blanket amnesty and citizenship to those same immigrants?
Not whether you may produce political leaflets that you oppose utterly, or even whether you should produce such leaflets, but whether you must?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
For example, say you're a printer. Are you allowed to refuse to print leaflets for the BNP? Are you allowed to refuse to print material advocating the forcible expulsion of illegal immigrants, or advocating the granting of a blanket amnesty and citizenship to those same immigrants?
Not whether you may produce political leaflets that you oppose utterly, or even whether you should produce such leaflets, but whether you must?
The obvious corollary is the question of whether a printer is legally liable for things printed at another's request. If, as has been proposed, the act of printing constitutes an act of support and endorsement rather than the simple provision of a service, this would seem to logically suggest legal liability for whatever is expressed.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Well, we're back to 'legal'<> 'moral'
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
It's an interesting question. If a baker prepares a cake (to stay within the pastry world we seem to keep returning to) claiming that Julie is "The World's Best Mom", does Julie have any recourse if the baker later declares, via cake, that Anne is now "The World's Best Mom"? That would imply that Julie is no longer as good a mom as she was when the original cake was prepared, which seems mildly defamatory.
And that's just matters of opinion. What about matters of fact? If the Reallybig Automotive dealership orders a cake celebrating that they're the #1 car dealer in the region, can Verybig Automotive get damages for libel if they can demonstrate that they actually exceed Reallybig in sales?
This would all seem to follow logically from the arguments advanced by various recalcitrant bakers that their products constitute their personal opinions rather than those of their clients.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
For example, say you're a printer. Are you allowed to refuse to print leaflets for the BNP? Are you allowed to refuse to print material advocating the forcible expulsion of illegal immigrants, or advocating the granting of a blanket amnesty and citizenship to those same immigrants?
Not whether you may produce political leaflets that you oppose utterly, or even whether you should produce such leaflets, but whether you must?
I don't agree that there's a valid analogy between bakers and printers when it comes to being made to 'advocate for a cause'. A cake with a few words of text is not the same kind of ringing political endorsement that printing a political book or political leaflet is. The whole idea that baking a cake represents any sort of endorsement by the baker of the message put on the cake or the celebration in which the cake is being used is just hilarious. The 'burden' on cake bakers to produce cakes they 'object to' is such a ridiculously small burden that I can't take their 'plight' seriously.
In any job involving working with other people, usually you find that something about one or more of your coworkers is objectionable. It's a basic part of work life to just learn to live with other people's issues and get on with them regardless. And if you really really object, then you can change jobs. Part of providing a service to the public such as cake baking, is dealing with the public. Sometimes there will be things about your customers that you don't like for whatever reason. Part of having a business open to the public is that dealing with such people is something you have to learn to live with. And if you really really object, then you can change jobs and not run a business open to the public. You are not being compelled by law to serve anyone, since closing your business instead is always an option - you are simply being required to serve people without discrimination as to a few selected criteria, and if you don't feel your decency and generosity extends to holding your tongue and being fake-nice to the occasional customer that falls into a category you'd love to discriminate against but which the law doesn't allow - then running a business open to the public is not a life choice you ought to make.
Being a publisher/printer of books and pamphlets is quite different in the sense that yes you are producing large volumes of text, which clearly convey various messages, which to varying extents must be approved by you anyway (depending on your exact role), and which to varying extents you're potentially legally responsible for the content of. You obviously retain your rights to reject the client and to reject to provide service on any grounds whatsoever other than those explicitly banned from discrimination. Such grounds might include:
1. You object to swear words present in the material.
2. You object to what you perceive as hate-speech present in the material.
3. You object to an overly negative tone taken by the material.
etc.
There are enough valid options to allow you to find reasons to totally refuse to your heart's content anything objectionably hate-filed that the BNP wants printed.
If your role in the process of publication is such that you are required to approve of or agree with the message being published, then of course you can object to the content of the message on any ground you like. No anti-discrimination law requires you to say things you object to or express opinions at length that you don't agree with. If your role in the process is not such that you are required to agree with the message being published, due to them in no sense being your words or your work and you having no legal responsibility whatsoever concerning the publication of the work, then it becomes irrelevant whether you agree with the content of the work or not and you should probably not read it if you think that would compromise your ability to do the job you're being employed to do. If you chose to be employed as a printer, but your conscience can't cope with the fact that you disagree with some small number of things being printed, then again you've made a bad choice of job for yourself and it's up to you to either endure it as part of the job or think about choosing another career for yourself. Again, part of the choice you make in opening your business to the public is that you are making the choice to serve the public without discrimination on the few grounds of discrimination that are banned.
[ 24. October 2014, 20:05: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by South Coast Kevin;
quote:
ISTM all that gay people who wish to marry their same-sex partner want is the right for their partnership to be considered 'normal' and treated the same as a woman-man partnership. What exactly is it that you object to, Steve?
One way of expressing the point would be that it depends what you mean by 'normal' and what philosophical view underlies your idea of 'normality'. A plural society implies that people are allowed a great deal of liberty to disagree about that.
I'm still rather exploring 'what exactly ... I object to' here. But my starting point was the inherent bias of the OP with its 'we' who do or don't accommodate 'religion'. In a plural society 'we' includes the various religious people and the correct way of expressing the point is "How far do we in a plural society mutually accommodate one another?"
I do, by the way, probably object to 'The Christian Institute' more than I object to SSM.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by South Coast Kevin;
quote:
ISTM all that gay people who wish to marry their same-sex partner want is the right for their partnership to be considered 'normal' and treated the same as a woman-man partnership. What exactly is it that you object to, Steve?
One way of expressing the point would be that it depends what you mean by 'normal' and what philosophical view underlies your idea of 'normality'.
How about "not insane or criminal"?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
