It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Tolerance Works Both Ways"

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
Atheists don't have a moral compass because they don't have an organized belief system. Atheists are a belief in nothing and as such have no code other than 'do as thou wilt'.

Can I make editing suggestions?

Atheists don't believe in God.

You can pretty much delete the rest.




posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I'm not arguing to put them out of business. I'm just talking about the effectiveness of boycotts versus the appeal of the product being sold. That is pure economic theory talk there buddy, not political talk.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Then by rights Atheists should be allowed to refuse all Christians in their place of work.


Go and find a Christian baker and photographer.

Etcetera.



If fair share means anything, it means the above!



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: tridentblue
a reply to: Astrocyte

I'm normally pretty liberal but I'm annoyed with liberals not seeing the nuance in this one. Suppose a Muslim woman has a small cleaning business. A potential client owns a Wiccan establishment. She says she'll hire the Muslim woman, but she needs to not cover her hair and everything, to celebrate the spirit of the Goddess. Should the Muslim woman be compelled to uncover herself in violation of her faith, or does she have the right to not take that contract because it goes against her faith?

If you prefer, switch the faiths, a Wiccan cleaning woman who is told she needs to cover her hair and defer to men at a place, which is against her female empowerment faith. Should she be compelled by the government to take the job just because she has a business? No.

Generally, people should not be compelled into business acts that are against their values. Like it or not, that can mean refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding if you don't believe in gay marriage. It doesn't become discriminatory until its not about the act, but who the customer is. e.g. refusing to sell a pre-made cake to a customer because he/she is gay or another race.


Thank you. This law was passed by the Federal Government in 1993 specifically to protect the practices of the Southwestern Native American religions which need large areas of open land, and specific places at that, along with the use of peyote which is generally illegal by federal drug law. I'm betting that if this forum had existed everyone would have been all in favor of it.

It exists in about 31 states right now, not counting Indiana, at the state level. Given the 1st Amendment, it's pretty shocking that we actually need it at all. But people seem to be lacking in general respect for the idea of what deep religiousity of all kinds actually is these days. It does not stop the moment you leave your house of worship or your personal dwelling place no matter how much the freedom from religion crowd would like it to. If you are truly religious in ANY faith, it is a deep and ingrained part of your daily life and informs your actions and beliefs.

That means the Sikh will wear a dagger. The Muslim women will want to cover her hair and wear loose fitting clothing in some cases. The Amish will eschew modern technology. Should they be compelled to do things to suit your whims and against their belief in their own place and on their own turf? Isn't that selfish of you?

Another way to look at this is to compare it to medical laws that protect doctors and pharmacists. No one can compel a doctor to perform an abortion. I suppose you could say that the woman may not consider the baby to be human and the act to be murder, but the doctor might. Shouldn't she have the right to say it's her body and her choice, not the doctor's? Shouldn't she have the right to sue if the doctor refuses and have the state compel? Essentially, the doctor is refusing service over a religious objection in those cases. And yet the law sides with the doctor.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Then by rights Atheists should be allowed to refuse all Christians in their place of work.


Go and find a Christian baker and photographer.

Etcetera.



If fair share means anything, it means the above!


I prefer Muslim bakers, but I get your point. How does someone know a person's sexual orientation or religion anyway? I don't want to know and I hope you wont tell me.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight'

Only if you ask the person to somehow participate in your marriage.

In the florist case, she had been serving the gay customer for years. What she objected to was participating in the wedding by arranging the flowers which she felt was her endorsing the participating in the ceremony which she felt was sacrilegious.

It's not about someone being gay. It's about asking us to take part in something we don't believe in that we feel violated our beliefs and then asking us to accept payment for it. "Here sin for me and then take payment for sinning."



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Then by rights Atheists should be allowed to refuse all Christians in their place of work.


Go and find a Christian baker and photographer.

Etcetera.



If fair share means anything, it means the above!


I prefer Muslim bakers, but I get your point. How does someone know a person's sexual orientation or religion anyway? I don't want to know and I hope you wont tell me.


And if you don't, then there is no way to know and no way I could have any grounds for refusal. That would be best.

Just ask me to bake the freakin' cake or arrange the flowers and take them. Don't give me the details beyond "wedding."
edit on 31-3-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Metallicus

I'm not arguing to put them out of business. I'm just talking about the effectiveness of boycotts versus the appeal of the product being sold. That is pure economic theory talk there buddy, not political talk.


It isn't easy to tell where your politics end and something else begins. I am all about personal liberty so whenever it feel it is being threatened I will defend a persons rights against the meddling of society and Government. I am actually very simple in beliefs. You leave me be and I leave you be.

Keep your crap on your side of the fence.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Then by rights Atheists should be allowed to refuse all Christians in their place of work.


Go and find a Christian baker and photographer.

Etcetera.



If fair share means anything, it means the above!


I prefer Muslim bakers, but I get your point. How does someone know a person's sexual orientation or religion anyway? I don't want to know and I hope you wont tell me.


And if you don't, then there is no way to know and know way I could have any grounds for refusal. That would be best.

Just ask me to bake the freakin' cake or arrange the flowers and take them. Don't give me the details beyond "wedding."


Finally, the voice of sanity.

If I know your religion or sexual orientation it is your own fault for telling me. I don't care or want to know.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

LoL.

Just being pedantic really.

I think they should all grow up...



Seems to be mainly a tiny minority of christians & LGBT bringing this s# up...


Just get a damn room already



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: Metallicus
Atheists don't have a moral compass because they don't have an organized belief system. Atheists are a belief in nothing and as such have no code other than 'do as thou wilt'.

Can I make editing suggestions?

Atheists don't believe in God.

You can pretty much delete the rest.


No, you may not suggest edits for my posts and I won't suggest them for yours.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Charlie I actually really like you. I didn't want to at first, but you are a damn funny guy with good ideas.

*hugs*

(non-gay hugs)




posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Just because I don't believe a gay marriage can exist religiously doesn't mean I'm out to stop gays from having what they call marriage. I just don't want to be compelled to participate. To me that's anti-freedom too.

There has to be a compromise in there somewhere that let's business owners who feel like I do keep their livelihood. I'm just not sure where.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Thanks Metallicus...

I guess no one here will always agree...


But I know who is smarter than most, and you fit the bill!


*NonGay hug reciprocated*




posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

This is kind of what I have been saying for a while. There was no need to push on Christians to bake cakes or provide services that made them uncomfortable.

Instead of enjoying the milestone that is gay marriage, they tempted the devil by picking a fight that is detremental to the cause. IMO it was spearheaded by ego driven publicity whores.

Now you must deal with this while giving ammo to the opponents.

Good Job



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Metallicus

Just because I don't believe a gay marriage can exist religiously doesn't mean I'm out to stop gays from having what they call marriage. I just don't want to be compelled to participate. To me that's anti-freedom too.

There has to be a compromise in there somewhere that let's business owners who feel like I do keep their livelihood. I'm just not sure where.



That's the thing. I support your right to participate in my life or not to the extent you feel comfortable. Regardless of beliefs or morals or whatever. We all should be free to live our lives as we see fit and not force other people to be involved in it unless they want to be.

Why would you WANT people that don't support your to be involved in your life?



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

MY politics rarely enter conversations here on ATS. I'm usually arguing from a practical standpoint or a realist standpoint. It is usually the people I talk to who make assumptions on my politics and think I am being political. It would be nice if I could have a conversation for once with someone who didn't make assumptions on my political leanings just because it is a politically hot topic. WOW. THAT'LL be the day.

I only care about facts, science, math, and history. I don't care about hurting you with the truth though and many people think that a biting truth is being political.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Metallicus

Well, I don't think anyone is stopping you from loading up on supplies and venturing out into the wild to live "free" from society. We all still have that right. There are places on the planet you can go where you'll never run into another human being ever again, and you will be free to do whatever you want, whenever you want. No one is forced to be a member of society.

EDIT: I could think of a few rivers in the Amazon that if you traveled up, you'd never be bothered by another soul.


Actually I am saying people have a right to live right where they own property now without your interference. I am sick of people forcing their lifestyles on me just because we live in proximity. Leave ME and other people alone and I will do the same for you. It doesn't get more fair.


Owning property is a social contract. You need society in order for such a thing to hold up.


THAT is the problem. Having a place to live is a God-given right not something society can grant a person.


having a place to live IS NOT a God-given right...where are you getting this information?...if it was, all the churches would have already been turned into homeless shelters.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
There's a lot of BS in this thread. The only thing missing (thankfully!) is the ever popular "I'm going to a Muslim deli and demanding bacon!" comment. The idea that society as a whole needs to bend to the religious beliefs of any one group is asinine on its face and it only has support because in this case, it's the purported religious beliefs of some "Christians" at issue.

Do we allow gangs of "Christians" to murder witches given the fact that Exodus 22:18 clearly makes this act not only moral, but an edict from God? Of course not, because we don't allow one person to harm another based on religious belief. We tolerate a person's right to practice their religion as long as it doesn't affect others negatively.

This isn't a new idea.

To address a few arguments that are common in these types of discussions:


No...you find another place to eat. And then, eventually, the intollerance of the establishment will become well-enough known in the community that, if it's a tolerant community, the establishment will eventually close its doors because it has lost too much business for being judgmental jackasses.


Yeah, because that's how segregation ended? Oh, wait, no that's not how segregation ended; it ended with a law.


And laws, any laws, that attempt to enforce respect will fail simply because respect is an aspect of moral values. And you cannot legislate morality.


Society cannot make a person respect others with a law but it can enact laws that provide punishments for doing harm to others. What seems to be missing from the conservative perspective on this issue is the fact that discrimination is doing harm to others.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Or there simply would be no homeless people.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join