- Oct 19, 2004
- 13,553
- 6,871
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What about Muslims? (That hypocrisy was my point.)OB
- Q. Do you believe that discrimination is wrong?
- A. Yes, because discrimination harms people by cutting them off from opportunities and suggests that they are less able than others
- Q. Why should Christianity be able to discriminate and consequently harm people?
- A. Because it always has?
By secular standards it's discrimination and there are a variety of interpretations of scripture. There are a number of denominations where women are struggling for equalityhe first one depends on which denomination one is but it's not discrimination because it depends on their interpretation of a couple of the scriptures. Women in those denominations wouldn't believe they should be preaching.
Why is it OK because it's "just the Catholic Church". Remember Catholicism is one of the major Christian religions. Nuns are not allowed to become priestsThe second is particular to the Catholic church only, as far as I know. The women, nuns, are also celibate.
It's a reference to teaching positions in certain schools being restricted to a particular religion, typically CatholicThe third one I don't understand what you are referring to.
In my country aged care centres set up by Churches will often restrict their staff to their centre's religionAnd the fourth one, in my view, either one could be a wonderful caregiver. I'd rather have a skilled Buddhist caregiver than an unskilled Christian one.
What about Muslims? (That hypocrisy was my point.)
It's so harmful to have to go to another baker or photographer, that's so, so harmful.OB
- Q. Do you believe that discrimination is wrong?
- A. Yes, because discrimination harms people by cutting them off from opportunities and suggests that they are less able than others
- Q. Why should Christianity be able to discriminate and consequently harm people?
- A. Because it always has?
Okay, kids, note this so you can see where this is all going.
It's so harmful to have to go to another baker or photographer, that's so, so harmful.
But it's not harmful to insist that someone must sin against their God or give up their business and livelihood that supports them, their employees, their family, and any charities that they share with.
That's not harmful at all, or so much less harmful that it just doesn't count.
There's no law I know of (NB I'm not from the US) which prevents you from refusing to provide a "racist laced cake". The groups we've been talking about have usually been granted special protection under the law because of past significant levels of discrimination.What if a white supremacist wanted a black bakery to make them a racist-laced cake? Would the bakery refusing (as I hope they would), be justified?
That is what I said, there are different interpretations within denominations so whatever church one attends that is what they are going to abide by, men and women alike. It's not because men want to discriminate against women.By secular standards it's discrimination and there are a variety of interpretations of scripture. There are a number of denominations where women are struggling for equality
Why is it OK because it's "just the Catholic Church". Remember Catholicism is one of the major Christian religions. Nuns are not allowed to become priests
It's a reference to teaching positions in certain schools being restricted to a particular religion, typically Catholic
In my country aged care centres set up by Churches will often restrict their staff to their centre's religion
OB
No - but there are laws designed to prevent discrimination in all its variety of forms. This US cake thing isn't yet settled. We'll see where it leads. Remember - what is legal and what is ethical aren't always the same thing.Apparently there's no law that requires anyone to bake a specific cake for anyone.
Supreme Court engages on same-sex marriage cake case, hands win to baker, for now
You think sinning against one's God is a flimsy excuse. Well, then there isn't any reason to think you would ever understand.In the broader society it is wrong to discriminate because its harmful to others. We've spent years trying to rid ourselves of discrimination based on race, gender, etc. etc. Why should we give one institution the right to discriminate when we give it to no others unless they have a compelling practical argument? Scripture is not an argument - it is an assertion; an assertion based on a Middle eastern culture from 2000 years ago. Even Christians will argue about the correct interpretation of scripture. It seems a pretty flimsy basis to use a reason to accept discrimination.
OB
What do you mean it's not settled. I haven't heard of another case going before the SCOTUS.No - but there are laws designed to prevent discrimination in all its variety of forms. This US cake thing isn't yet settled. We'll see where it leads. Remember - what is legal and what is ethical aren't always the same thing.
OB
SOURCE: Increasing Support for Religiously Based Service Refusals | PRRI
Increasing Support for Religiously Based Service Refusals
In April 2019 the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) conducted a random, representative phone survey of 1,100 American adults to assess support for religiously based service refusal directed at a number of minority groups.
The survey, conducted by professional interviewers, was based on responses to this statement:
“A small business owner in <your state> should be allowed to refuse to provide products or services to < group> , if doing so violated their religious beliefs”
The groups were:
Where data was available, the results were compared to a similar survey conducted in 2014.
- Gay/Lesbian
- Transgender
- Atheists
- Muslims
- Jews
- African American
This bar chart summarises the overall results. Note that acceptance of service refusal has significantly increased since 2014:
View attachment 270098
This chart (below) shows support for refusal by religious affiliation. Across the board, white Evangelical Protestants or white Mainline Protestants were most likely to agree with refusal of service.
View attachment 270099
In 4 out of 6 groups, Republican support for refusal of service was more than double that of Democrats (see chart below):
View attachment 270100
SOURCE: Increasing Support for Religiously Based Service Refusals | PRRI
I can understand why services would be refused to any one of those groups. Its obvious to me that if I served those individuals I would have a greater tendency to be a Jewish African American with gay tendencies. I can't condone that.
What do you mean it's not settled. I haven't heard of another case going before the SCOTUS.
Wow, I totally miss that, thank you.From Chrystal's article:
For the second time in as many years, the Supreme Court on Monday engaged on a major religious liberty case involving same-sex marriage, but is sidestepping for now the substantive issue of alleged religion-based discrimination.Supreme Court engages on same-sex marriage cake case, hands win to baker, for now
The court granted the petition of Christian bakers in Oregon who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because of their religious beliefs and wiped away a lower court ruling against them. The justices sent the case back to the Sixth Circuit for further consideration.
Instructing the appeals court to reexamine the matter in light of a similar, narrowly-decided case last year from Colorado, the justices left open the key question of when discrimination on religious grounds can override civil rights protections written into law.
OB
I can understand why services would be refused to any one of those groups. Its obvious to me that if I served those individuals I would have a greater tendency to being a Jewish African American with gay tendencies. I can't condone that.
I don't watch movies containing immoral acts so why would I support one with my own actions?
I don't believe that I should be put in the position of giving up my family's livelihood or doing something that I believe would compromise my relationship with my God.
The first one depends on which denomination one is but it's not discrimination because it depends on their interpretation of a couple of the scriptures. Women in those denominations wouldn't believe they should be preaching.
What if a white supremacist wanted a black bakery to make them a racist-laced cake? Would the bakery refusing (as I hope they would), be justified?
It's not because men want to discriminate against women.
Do Catholic women want to be priests? I highly doubt it because Catholics are very much in support of their doctrines.
I'm a white male asexual atheist in an evangelical white community and I still feel more privileged because of the first two traits I have, while the other 2 could create issues, but my friends who are minority religions, LGBTQ, etc and live in similarly Bible Belt areas, are arguably more a concern for me in terms of discriminatory practices that could affect their livelihood, etc.It basically left me speechless.
I will make one small observation. If I were a gay, African American atheist living near a white Evangelical community, I would be very, very worried.
OB
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?