ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke 1729 -1797
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Jul 1, 2023 12:21:52 GMT -5
Yes according to the court. If you owned a print shop and a full blooded hard core crazy person came into your print shop and wanted you to print up 10,000 copies of a flyer that says kill all Jews and blacks, you can legally refuse service. Whats wrong with that? This is what the court finalized. How about a sane, interracial couple wanting 500 copies of a flyer printed regarding their upcoming marriage and the printer believes the bible states people of different races who marry commit a mortal sin and it would be a violation of his religious and free speech rights to print the fliers. Good for America? As a business owner I can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. You can always go down the street to my competitor who doesn't care about your beliefs.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 1, 2023 12:36:47 GMT -5
How about a sane, interracial couple wanting 500 copies of a flyer printed regarding their upcoming marriage and the printer believes the bible states people of different races who marry commit a mortal sin and it would be a violation of his religious and free speech rights to print the fliers. Good for America? As a business owner I can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. You can always go down the street to my competitor who doesn't care about your beliefs. Suggest you research that "right" you claim. It isn't absolute.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 1, 2023 12:36:56 GMT -5
How about a sane, interracial couple wanting 500 copies of a flyer printed regarding their upcoming marriage and the printer believes the bible states people of different races who marry commit a mortal sin and it would be a violation of his religious and free speech rights to print the fliers. Good for America? As a business owner I can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. You can always go down the street to my competitor who doesn't care about your beliefs. Congratulations. In your reply, you would be in violation of the The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Does my business reserve the right to refuse service to customers?
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,415
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 1, 2023 12:44:00 GMT -5
How about a sane, interracial couple wanting 500 copies of a flyer printed regarding their upcoming marriage and the printer believes the bible states people of different races who marry commit a mortal sin and it would be a violation of his religious and free speech rights to print the fliers. Good for America? As a business owner I can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. You can always go down the street to my competitor who doesn't care about your beliefs. So it’s ok to refuse to serve a member of the armed forces if you are a pacifist
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2023 14:41:14 GMT -5
It isn’t whataboutism. These cases all have to do with how much discrimination is allowed. If people can discriminate in the workplace because they disagree with your lifestyle, where do you draw the line. Is it ok to refuse to bake a cake, design a website, fill a prescription, refuse medical care, refuse to defend someone as a public defender, or any myriad of public interactions because someone’s “lifestyle” is against your beliefs? That is essentially what conservatives want. To not have to provide any services or interact at all with people who, by living their lives, disgust them. That is what this case is as about. And this one was all hypothetical. And they are about an individual's right to live their life following their conscience. There are two people involved in each public interaction. If you are acting as an individual, you should have the right to refuse in all those situations listed. If you are working for or as a corporation or government entity, no you shouldn't have the right to refuse. I would go along with this, with the proviso that anyone engaged in business open to the public, whether as an agent of a company or as a sole proprietorship, is adjudged to be an entity with no right to refuse and not an individual during the course of that business. It is not clear to me whether you are including solo businesspersons, hence my clarification. Of course nobody has the right to come up to any random person on the street and demand that they act in some fashion. We do have the right to demand that businesses open to the public serve the entire public. Absent any legitimate reason such as threat or damage/loss, of course.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,639
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 1, 2023 15:05:40 GMT -5
And they are about an individual's right to live their life following their conscience. There are two people involved in each public interaction. If you are acting as an individual, you should have the right to refuse in all those situations listed. If you are working for or as a corporation or government entity, no you shouldn't have the right to refuse. I would go along with this, with the proviso that anyone engaged in business open to the public, whether as an agent of a company or as a sole proprietorship, is adjudged to be an entity with no right to refuse and not an individual during the course of that business. It is not clear to me whether you are including solo businesspersons, hence my clarification. Of course nobody has the right to come up to any random person on the street and demand that they act in some fashion. We do have the right to demand that businesses open to the public serve the entire public. Absent any legitimate reason such as threat or damage/loss, of course. this. if someone is drunk & disorderly, abusive, or an asshole...those aren't protected classes. protected classes are just existing as themselves.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2023 15:11:51 GMT -5
I would go along with this, with the proviso that anyone engaged in business open to the public, whether as an agent of a company or as a sole proprietorship, is adjudged to be an entity with no right to refuse and not an individual during the course of that business. It is not clear to me whether you are including solo businesspersons, hence my clarification. Of course nobody has the right to come up to any random person on the street and demand that they act in some fashion. We do have the right to demand that businesses open to the public serve the entire public. Absent any legitimate reason such as threat or damage/loss, of course. this. if someone is drunk & disorderly, abusive, or an asshole...those aren't protected classes. protected classes are just existing as themselves. Important to remember also that protected classes exist SOLELY because bigoted others consider/considered them to be in some way "less than" and undeserving of equal rights.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,639
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 1, 2023 15:16:46 GMT -5
this. if someone is drunk & disorderly, abusive, or an asshole...those aren't protected classes. protected classes are just existing as themselves. Important to remember also that protected classes exist SOLELY because bigoted others consider/considered them to be in some way "less than" and undeserving of equal rights. yes, exactly. *I* understand this. I'm just trying to make a point for the deliberately obtuse.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2023 15:28:20 GMT -5
Important to remember also that protected classes exist SOLELY because bigoted others consider/considered them to be in some way "less than" and undeserving of equal rights. yes, exactly. *I* understand this. I'm just trying to make a point for the deliberately obtuse. yes, exactly. *I* understand that you do. I'm just trying to reinforce the point for the deliberately obtuse.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,639
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 1, 2023 15:30:21 GMT -5
yes, exactly. *I* understand this. I'm just trying to make a point for the deliberately obtuse. yes, exactly. *I* understand that you do. I'm just trying to reinforce the point for the deliberately obtuse. 🥂
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 1, 2023 19:47:52 GMT -5
And they are about an individual's right to live their life following their conscience. There are two people involved in each public interaction. If you are acting as an individual, you should have the right to refuse in all those situations listed. If you are working for or as a corporation or government entity, no you shouldn't have the right to refuse. I would go along with this, with the proviso that anyone engaged in business open to the public, whether as an agent of a company or as a sole proprietorship, is adjudged to be an entity with no right to refuse and not an individual during the course of that business. It is not clear to me whether you are including solo businesspersons, hence my clarification. Of course nobody has the right to come up to any random person on the street and demand that they act in some fashion. We do have the right to demand that businesses open to the public serve the entire public. Absent any legitimate reason such as threat or damage/loss, of course. Can't nail down in my head exactly what "agent of a company" means so won't comment on them. I don't see where a sole proprietor is getting something extra from society. They are an individual accepting full personal responsibility for the company. Therefore I don't see where we have the right to demand they abandon their personal moral code.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,415
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 1, 2023 20:14:49 GMT -5
I would go along with this, with the proviso that anyone engaged in business open to the public, whether as an agent of a company or as a sole proprietorship, is adjudged to be an entity with no right to refuse and not an individual during the course of that business. It is not clear to me whether you are including solo businesspersons, hence my clarification. Of course nobody has the right to come up to any random person on the street and demand that they act in some fashion. We do have the right to demand that businesses open to the public serve the entire public. Absent any legitimate reason such as threat or damage/loss, of course. Can't nail down in my head exactly what "agent of a company" means so won't comment on them. I don't see where a sole proprietor is getting something extra from society. They are an individual accepting full personal responsibility for the company. Therefore I don't see where we have the right to demand they abandon their personal moral code. If they take advantage of the rights of incorporation, they should have to follow the rules of society. If they do not incorporate, I think they have more leeway. That should be their choice
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2023 20:54:26 GMT -5
I would go along with this, with the proviso that anyone engaged in business open to the public, whether as an agent of a company or as a sole proprietorship, is adjudged to be an entity with no right to refuse and not an individual during the course of that business. It is not clear to me whether you are including solo businesspersons, hence my clarification. Of course nobody has the right to come up to any random person on the street and demand that they act in some fashion. We do have the right to demand that businesses open to the public serve the entire public. Absent any legitimate reason such as threat or damage/loss, of course. Can't nail down in my head exactly what "agent of a company" means so won't comment on them. I don't see where a sole proprietor is getting something extra from society. They are an individual accepting full personal responsibility for the company. Therefore I don't see where we have the right to demand they abandon their personal moral code. I almost changed the terminology there, because the income does pass through to their personal return rather than be taxed separately to the corporation. Probably should have as I did later. There is still though a lot of leeway through the use of business deductions where they can act in ways to inordinately benefit themselves, so I'll stick with the point. The larger point is that a business itself does not and cannot have a moral code, so cannot refuse service on the basis of one You may argue that for sole proprietors. You cannot logically argue that for corporations. I would consider an agent of a company in this context to be anyone in a position to affect how the company behaves toward a customer or how the customer is treated. Could be anyone from a salesperson, customer service person, or cashier up to store manager. I cannot off the top of my head come up with any customer-facing position that would not qualify.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 1, 2023 21:17:25 GMT -5
Can't nail down in my head exactly what "agent of a company" means so won't comment on them. I don't see where a sole proprietor is getting something extra from society. They are an individual accepting full personal responsibility for the company. Therefore I don't see where we have the right to demand they abandon their personal moral code. I almost changed the terminology there, because the income does pass through to their personal return rather than be taxed separately to the corporation. Probably should have as I did later. There is still though a lot of leeway through the use of business deductions where they can act in ways to inordinately benefit themselves, so I'll stick with the point. The larger point is that a business itself does not and cannot have a moral code, so cannot refuse service on the basis of one You may argue that for sole proprietors. You cannot logically argue that for corporations. I would consider an agent of a company in this context to be anyone in a position to affect how the company behaves toward a customer or how the customer is treated. Could be anyone from a salesperson, customer service person, or cashier up to store manager. I cannot off the top of my head come up with any customer-facing position that would not qualify. I did argue that for sole proprietors. Agree on corporations. Re "agent of a company": I had Googled it and came up with a more formal sense of what those words might mean: A company's agent can act for the company and in some cases legally bind it. “Agency” is a legal term that describes the relationship between a principal (a person or business) who engages an agent (other person or business) to act for the principal. For example, a company acting as a principal may ask an agent, such as a trusted employee, to sign documents for the company or speak to vendors on behalf of the company. Company owners, directors, and officers should be aware of when a person may be an agent under the law. link If you meant basically the people working for a corporation, I would agree they should be party to the corporation's agreement to not discriminate based on accepting a corporate paycheck.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2023 21:43:43 GMT -5
I almost changed the terminology there, because the income does pass through to their personal return rather than be taxed separately to the corporation. Probably should have as I did later. There is still though a lot of leeway through the use of business deductions where they can act in ways to inordinately benefit themselves, so I'll stick with the point. The larger point is that a business itself does not and cannot have a moral code, so cannot refuse service on the basis of one You may argue that for sole proprietors. You cannot logically argue that for corporations. I would consider an agent of a company in this context to be anyone in a position to affect how the company behaves toward a customer or how the customer is treated. Could be anyone from a salesperson, customer service person, or cashier up to store manager. I cannot off the top of my head come up with any customer-facing position that would not qualify. I did argue that for sole proprietors. Agree on corporations. Re "agent of a company": I had Googled it and came up with a more formal sense of what those words might mean: A company's agent can act for the company and in some cases legally bind it. “Agency” is a legal term that describes the relationship between a principal (a person or business) who engages an agent (other person or business) to act for the principal. For example, a company acting as a principal may ask an agent, such as a trusted employee, to sign documents for the company or speak to vendors on behalf of the company. Company owners, directors, and officers should be aware of when a person may be an agent under the law. link If you meant basically the people working for a corporation, I would agree they should be party to the corporation's agreement to not discriminate based on accepting a corporate paycheck. Yes, I'm aware. I was trying to make clear that I would not automatically dismiss that argument. I might not agree with it, but I can see how it could be made. I WOULD automatically dismiss a similar argument for corporations.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 1, 2023 21:59:04 GMT -5
I did argue that for sole proprietors. Agree on corporations. Re "agent of a company": I had Googled it and came up with a more formal sense of what those words might mean: A company's agent can act for the company and in some cases legally bind it. “Agency” is a legal term that describes the relationship between a principal (a person or business) who engages an agent (other person or business) to act for the principal. For example, a company acting as a principal may ask an agent, such as a trusted employee, to sign documents for the company or speak to vendors on behalf of the company. Company owners, directors, and officers should be aware of when a person may be an agent under the law. link If you meant basically the people working for a corporation, I would agree they should be party to the corporation's agreement to not discriminate based on accepting a corporate paycheck. Yes, I'm aware. I was trying to make clear that I would not automatically dismiss that argument. I might not agree with it, but I can see how it could be made. I WOULD automatically dismiss a similar argument for corporations. Sweet. I think we have clarified well our minor little differences. Now if we could just have a few minutes with Clarence and Sam.
|
|
Pink Cashmere
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 24, 2022 16:18:40 GMT -5
Posts: 4,518
|
Post by Pink Cashmere on Jul 1, 2023 22:09:16 GMT -5
As a minority myself, I have no issue avoiding businesses that don’t want my money just because of my skin color.
Of course it would be a problem if every business in different fields didn’t want to have me as a customer or client just because of my skin color and they provide a product or service I really need.
In my mind, the only color a business owner should be concerned with is green, the color of dollar bills. Imo, if they are more concerned with skin color than making money, they are kind of silly, because I’ve read more than once how Black people in general, tend to spend more money on material things out of proportion to the number of black people living in this nation.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2023 22:21:27 GMT -5
Yes, I'm aware. I was trying to make clear that I would not automatically dismiss that argument. I might not agree with it, but I can see how it could be made. I WOULD automatically dismiss a similar argument for corporations. Sweet. I think we have clarified well our minor little differences. Now if we could just have a few minutes with Clarence and Sam. I don't think we would need that long.
|
|
Spellbound454
Senior Member
"In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends"
Joined: Sept 9, 2011 17:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Jul 2, 2023 5:20:08 GMT -5
People have the basic human right to freedom of religion ..... or no religion. Its not for the non religious to claim the moral high ground.
both these basic human rights are ensconced in equality.
and theres the contradiction.
"Never acceptable" except for religious folks, whom you would deny.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 2, 2023 8:44:23 GMT -5
People have the basic human right to freedom of religion ..... or no religion. Its not for the non religious to claim the moral high ground. both these basic human rights are ensconced in equality. and theres the contradiction. "Never acceptable" except for religious folks, whom you would deny.False. Nobody's religious freedom is at risk. People are free to believe as they wish, and to worship as they wish, PROVIDED that they do not harm others by their actions. Thoughts and beliefs are not constrained in any way. ACTIONS may be, if they harm others. I will say again that the majority of people who claim to be Christian in this country have NO idea what it means to be one. They pick and choose a couple of things that they agree with and ignore the parts they find "inconvenient", taking much of it out of context anyway. I will say again that the vast majority of politicians who make their faith a major part of their public and political persona are lying about their faith, exploiting those who actually believe for their money and their votes. I grew up in a faith household that knew what being a Christian meant, and who acted like it. My grandfather attended seminary and preached as a young man. Leaders of the large church we attended were often guests in our home when I was young. World-travelled evangelists were close family friends. It is easy for me to see who actually believes...and who does not. It is easy to see whose actions are inspired by true belief...and whose are not. It is easy to see who follows the teachings of Jesus...and who does not. Bigotry and hate were not part of the religion I grew up with. Those who try to pass off those things as "Christian" should bear in mind that there was a New Testament too....
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,372
|
Post by Tiny on Jul 2, 2023 8:47:56 GMT -5
and theres the contradiction. "Never acceptable" except for religious folks, whom you would deny.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,436
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 2, 2023 9:34:11 GMT -5
People have the basic human right to freedom of religion ..... or no religion. Its not for the non religious to claim the moral high ground. both these basic human rights are ensconced in equality. and theres the contradiction. "Never acceptable" except for religious folks, whom you would deny.False. Nobody's religious freedom is at risk. People are free to believe as they wish, and to worship as they wish, PROVIDED that they do not harm others by their actions. Thoughts and beliefs are not constrained in any way. ACTIONS may be, if they harm others. I will say again that the majority of people who claim to be Christian in this country have NO idea what it means to be one. They pick and choose a couple of things that they agree with and ignore the parts they find "inconvenient", taking much of it out of context anyway. I will say again that the vast majority of politicians who make their faith a major part of their public and political persona are lying about their faith, exploiting those who actually believe for their money and their votes. I grew up in a faith household that knew what being a Christian meant, and who acted like it. My grandfather (I'm told) was a missionary as a young man. Leaders of the large church we attended were often guests in our home when I was young. World-travelled evangelists were close family friends. It is easy for me to see who actually believes...and who does not. It is easy to see whose actions are inspired by true belief...and whose are not. It is easy to see who follows the teachings of Jesus...and who does not. Bigotry and hate were not part of the religion I grew up with. Those who try to pass off those things as "Christian" should bear in mind that there was a New Testament too.... Missions are colonization
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,415
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 2, 2023 9:35:49 GMT -5
When you live in a multicultural society, you need to understand that people have different beliefs. Should an Islam Mic business owner require all women to wear head coverings in order to enter the business. Why is that wrong but the Supreme Court decision right. Imagine the uproar if someone did that
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 2, 2023 9:44:39 GMT -5
False. Nobody's religious freedom is at risk. People are free to believe as they wish, and to worship as they wish, PROVIDED that they do not harm others by their actions. Thoughts and beliefs are not constrained in any way. ACTIONS may be, if they harm others. I will say again that the majority of people who claim to be Christian in this country have NO idea what it means to be one. They pick and choose a couple of things that they agree with and ignore the parts they find "inconvenient", taking much of it out of context anyway. I will say again that the vast majority of politicians who make their faith a major part of their public and political persona are lying about their faith, exploiting those who actually believe for their money and their votes. I grew up in a faith household that knew what being a Christian meant, and who acted like it. My grandfather (I'm told) was a missionary as a young man. Leaders of the large church we attended were often guests in our home when I was young. World-travelled evangelists were close family friends. It is easy for me to see who actually believes...and who does not. It is easy to see whose actions are inspired by true belief...and whose are not. It is easy to see who follows the teachings of Jesus...and who does not. Bigotry and hate were not part of the religion I grew up with. Those who try to pass off those things as "Christian" should bear in mind that there was a New Testament too.... Missions are colonization Not going to comment on that, but after reading the family history I'll amend my statement. He was training to be a missionary but didn't actually go. He instead preached in various locations, including other churches and jails.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 2, 2023 9:45:31 GMT -5
When you live in a multicultural society, you need to understand that people have different beliefs. Should an Islam Mic business owner require all women to wear head coverings in order to enter the business. Why is that wrong but the Supreme Court decision right. Imagine the uproar if someone did that Is it wrong if the Islamic business owner were to require it? If it is a sole proprietorship, I would say not. I would contend the uproar was wrong.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 2, 2023 9:54:31 GMT -5
People have the basic human right to freedom of religion ..... or no religion. Its not for the non religious to claim the moral high ground. both these basic human rights are ensconced in equality. and theres the contradiction. "Never acceptable" except for religious folks, whom you would deny.False. Nobody's religious freedom is at risk. People are free to believe as they wish, and to worship as they wish, PROVIDED that they do not harm others by their actions. Thoughts and beliefs are not constrained in any way. ACTIONS may be, if they harm others. I will say again that the majority of people who claim to be Christian in this country have NO idea what it means to be one. They pick and choose a couple of things that they agree with and ignore the parts they find "inconvenient", taking much of it out of context anyway. I will say again that the vast majority of politicians who make their faith a major part of their public and political persona are lying about their faith, exploiting those who actually believe for their money and their votes. I grew up in a faith household that knew what being a Christian meant, and who acted like it. My grandfather (I'm told) was a missionary as a young man. Leaders of the large church we attended were often guests in our home when I was young. World-travelled evangelists were close family friends. It is easy for me to see who actually believes...and who does not. It is easy to see whose actions are inspired by true belief...and whose are not. It is easy to see who follows the teachings of Jesus...and who does not. Bigotry and hate were not part of the religion I grew up with. Those who try to pass off those things as "Christian" should bear in mind that there was a New Testament too.... Thanks for sharing this. I found it enlightening. I grew up in a household in which God was only a traveling companion of my paternal Grandmother, showed up whenever she did. Therefore I wasn't burdened with "Truth" from an early age.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 2, 2023 10:08:57 GMT -5
False. Nobody's religious freedom is at risk. People are free to believe as they wish, and to worship as they wish, PROVIDED that they do not harm others by their actions. Thoughts and beliefs are not constrained in any way. ACTIONS may be, if they harm others. I will say again that the majority of people who claim to be Christian in this country have NO idea what it means to be one. They pick and choose a couple of things that they agree with and ignore the parts they find "inconvenient", taking much of it out of context anyway. I will say again that the vast majority of politicians who make their faith a major part of their public and political persona are lying about their faith, exploiting those who actually believe for their money and their votes. I grew up in a faith household that knew what being a Christian meant, and who acted like it. My grandfather (I'm told) was a missionary as a young man. Leaders of the large church we attended were often guests in our home when I was young. World-travelled evangelists were close family friends. It is easy for me to see who actually believes...and who does not. It is easy to see whose actions are inspired by true belief...and whose are not. It is easy to see who follows the teachings of Jesus...and who does not. Bigotry and hate were not part of the religion I grew up with. Those who try to pass off those things as "Christian" should bear in mind that there was a New Testament too.... Thanks for sharing this. I found it enlightening. I grew up in a household in which God was only a traveling companion of my paternal Grandmother, showed up whenever she did. Therefore I wasn't burdened with "Truth" from an early age. Believe me, I stay well away from organized religion at this point (there being so much non-Truth involved) and haven't stepped foot into an actual church service in decades. Given how much organized religion supports the GOP and Donald Trump, how much validity could there be?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 2, 2023 10:18:40 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing this. I found it enlightening. I grew up in a household in which God was only a traveling companion of my paternal Grandmother, showed up whenever she did. Therefore I wasn't burdened with "Truth" from an early age. Believe me, I stay well away from organized religion at this point (there being so much non-Truth involved) and haven't stepped foot into an actual church service in decades. Given how much organized religion supports the GOP and Donald Trump, how much validity could there be? Yet have retained that evangelical fervor for declaring "Truth".
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 2, 2023 10:29:06 GMT -5
Believe me, I stay well away from organized religion at this point (there being so much non-Truth involved) and haven't stepped foot into an actual church service in decades. Given how much organized religion supports the GOP and Donald Trump, how much validity could there be? Yet have retained that evangelical fervor for declaring "Truth". Calling out hypocrisy is important. Some people make it really easy to see, and do. I don't care what anyone believes. I care if they harm others in the exercise of that belief.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,055
|
Post by teen persuasion on Jul 2, 2023 15:21:27 GMT -5
That's what I'm seeing as well. But one weird thing, there was no real court case to get it to the Supreme Court. Apparently this was a woman that is going to open a design company saying she is going to deny service to some people. She hasn't actually denied service and no one has objected. It's very possible no one will even be interested in her services. It's weird that it got to the Supreme Court. That's what I saw, too. Some reporter decided to follow up on the names of the gay couple mentioned in legal filings. Turns out no one had contacted them before this - they had never worked with her, requested any services, anything. In fact, she hadn't made any websites - as Later said, she was GOING to open a design company, and doing research discovered it was illegal to discriminate per her state laws. So who picked her as the poster child for this case? Found it! Josh Hawley's wife Erin Hawley litigated the Creative 303 case in front of the Supreme Court.
|
|