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.

 

Should muslims be able to ban you from eating pork/drinking alcohol ?

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: NavyDoc
No Muslims should not be able to ban me having a beer but, at the same token, the state shouldn't force Muslims to sell me beer if they don't want to.


If Muslims don't refuse to sell beer to one group while selling it to everyone else, the state shouldn't have a problem. And most Muslims are smart enough to get out of the beer business if they don't want to sell beer.


So you don't want people to be entirely free.


Well, nobody is ENTIRELY free.




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Cabin


"" Should muslims be able to ban you from eating pork/drinking alcohol ? ""

This is a question for anyone against the SCOTUS allowing gay marriage due to religious freedom issues.



Pork and Alcohol is banned and not served in many restaurants owned by Muslims.

What's the legal issue with that?

Not easy to answer a trick question and tricky disclaimer.

"outside food and beverages not allowed" says many signs posted.




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: NavyDoc
No Muslims should not be able to ban me having a beer but, at the same token, the state shouldn't force Muslims to sell me beer if they don't want to.


If Muslims don't refuse to sell beer to one group while selling it to everyone else, the state shouldn't have a problem. And most Muslims are smart enough to get out of the beer business if they don't want to sell beer.


So you don't want people to be entirely free.


Well, nobody is ENTIRELY free.


Exactly--one side wants to use the coercive power of the state to force their beliefs on their fellow citizen and the other side wants to use the coercive power of the state to force their beliefs on their fellow citizen. The only difference being is who wants to force what, other than the third option of "you do your thing and I'll do mine."



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"...

I don't know why Churches don't pay tax to be honest.




@OP

As for banning pork & alcohol...
You mean legislatively?

Or refusing to sell it in their shops?


Legislative desire to ban anything is pretty abhorrent...

But what a shop decides to do is their business, so long as it applies to everyone who uses the shop.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Rocker2013

I wasn't going to post anymore here but after reading this I had to
reply...
I don't know what christian churches you have been to but the ones
I have attended aren't rabid christians,don't force their beliefs onto
others, and don't abuse others.
Political correctness and anti-decency ideals are destroying this once
great country.People are accepting behavior that is an abomination
as being normal and good,while demonizing the moral fabric of society.
Since the main topic of this thread concerns muslims...my prediction
is if they get any control over our country they would probably force
their sharia onto us.


First you claim that I'm wrong to use the term rabid Christians, then you prove me right by claiming that you are superior to other "sub humans" because we don't follow your religious rules.

Do you really not see the utter hypocrisy of your own post right there staring you in the face?

Listen up...
Your claim that society is immoral, that others are an "abomination" is exactly what I'm talking about. You are no better than me, or any other LGBT person, because you read a book once (or rather had it read to you) and believed every word of it was true.
You are not entitled to any more rights than I am, you are not entitled to be treated any differently, and you are not entitled to treat others with any less respect because of the nonsense you believe in.

Got it? Good.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I disagree.

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.

A Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

link



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Nope

My 2 cents.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I don't know why Churches don't pay tax to be honest.


Find out here.
hushmoney.org...



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: RedParrotHead


Maybe that's the best aproach when it comes to extremists. Otherwise you won't hold that democracy of yours for long.



A democracy isn't much of a democracy if there are no freedoms.


FYI - The U.S.A. is a republic - not a democracy. Just sayin' ... and assuming you're both discussing the US


It's a Republic Democracy Democratic Republic...

All Republics are a form of Democracy.


The more you know...

edit on 2-7-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth
Show me a generation that hasn't seen drastic change..your parents presumably saw 2 world wars.
If god was going to fix this steaming pile I figure back then would of been a good time.
edit on 2-7-2015 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs




All Republics are a form of Democracy.


But democracies are not always republics. Therefore the distinction should be made IMO.

Look, I know I'm just nit-picking and I understood the point of the previous posts. It's a character flaw of mine. I'll work on it.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

lol so they want all the perks of influencing Government but none of the drawbacks of having to pay for it...

Even the corporations & lobbyists can't do that.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: RedParrotHead

Absolutely.

My country the UK is a democracy, but not a republic...

However, I was also just nit picking, Red.


Can't help it sometimes.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Should muslims be able to ban you from eating pork/drinking alcohol ?

Um, no.

I am so sick and tired of this f"""ed up fairytale religious world we live in.

We need to just make religion illegal.
Muslim fanatics,Christian fanatics, any other religious fanatic-
Load them all up on a bus to nowhere.

What the hell is wrong with society?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: FinalCountdown


What the hell is wrong with society?


Ultimately, people like you.

Don't expect the near 50% of the planet that are of the Abrahamic faiths alone to protect you when it's your lot being bussed off to "nowhere".



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

50% you say?
That would clear up a lot of space.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: FinalCountdown

Yes it would, no doubt...

And when you're all gone we can practice freely.



Note;
We have the majority of the guns and bombs.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: FinalCountdown

Yes it would, no doubt...

And when you're all gone we can practice freely.



Note;
We have the majority of the guns and bombs.


But clearly not the brains...



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Citizens should be free to access public accommodations regardless of their race, religion or sexual orientation, and those who want to run a business are free to choose the type of business that best fits their personal goals, ideology, convictions, etc.

See, in my scenario both groups are free. And both groups are not entirely free: the citizen can't force a business owner to choose a business that doesn't fit his goals, ideology, convictions, and the business owner is not free to discriminate against a citizen on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation.

For example, if a baker sells wedding cakes to the general public, then he should not be able to discriminate against gays who want to purchase the same product everyone else buys. But, if the baker decides not to sell wedding cakes at all, then a gay person shouldn't be able to force the baker to sell him a wedding cake. Free, but not entirely free.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: FinalCountdown

Haha...

You win.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join