This Is The Most Important Religious Liberty Decision Since Masterpiece Cakeshop

[Quartermaine]

Language manipulation? As far as I know, dictionaries are considered fairly reliable.

Reality-corresponding truth. We should all be interested in that? Right?

On what grounds or authority do you apparently attempt to alter English vocabulary? Are you doing so to suit your worldview?

Definition of "discrimination"

New Websters

1a : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment racial discrimination
b : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3a : the act of making or perceiving a difference : the act of discriminating
b psychology : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

Old Websters:

1. The act of distinguishing; the act of making or observing a difference; distinction; as the discrimination between right and wrong.

2. The state of being distinguished.

3. Mark of distinction.

There is negative and positive discrimination. Discriminating against sin and evil is positive discrimination. Discriminating against race is negative discrimination. Discriminating against a person's beliefs/practice is not the same as discriminating agaisnt the person themselves. A belief or practice is no more a person that a person is a belief or practice. Therefore, to discriminate against a belief or practice is not the equivalent of discriminating against a person.
Now what problem with that do you have, if any?

my problem? we could start with the lack of honesty in your post.

the meaning of a word with multiple definitions is derived from context. If a sentence reads: "The athlete used his favorite bat to hit a home run." Would you be telling the truth if you claimed the word bat referred a flying mammal?

no, you would not.


in the scenario a black man becomes the victim of discrimination when a mod of bible carrying white people randomly snatch him from the street and murder him by hanging him from a tree can you honestly say that the mod was just telling the difference between a white man and a black man?

 

[Quartermaine]

It is best to argue from reality.

I was not drawing a strict equivalence between white supremacy and gay marriage/homosexual practice.

and i'm sure if cornered Christians who try to justify the and discrimination by associating pedophiles with homosexuals would woudl try to claim the same thing

I was comparing specific commonalities that are sufficient for the arguments I have posted. Such include:

1) They both are not protected categorizes pertaining to the legal cases pertaining to Christian businesses being persecuted.

Do Christians have special rights?

2) They are both sin (biblically condemned).

i thought you were talking legalities here. Legally what you consider to be sin is your personal belief but it has no baring on any legal case or law.

that aside can you cite chapter and verse where white supremacy is declared a sin?

3) They are both mutable and non-inherent to people.

just like religion. Does this justify anti-Sematism?

4) They are both choice-based.

jut like you personal prejudice is a choice.

Yes, definite points in common.

exactly like Christians trying to link homosexuals to pedophiles in order to justify hate. What does homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children have in common? nothing. Just like white supremacy and gay marriage have nothing in common except as a means to dehumanize gay couples and make discrimination palatable

 

[AACJ]

my problem? we could start with the lack of honesty in your post.

the meaning of a word with multiple definitions is derived from context. If a sentence reads: "The athlete used his favorite bat to hit a home run." Would you be telling the truth if you claimed the word bat referred a flying mammal?

no, you would not.


in the scenario a black man becomes the victim of discrimination when a mod of bible carrying white people randomly snatch him from the street and murder him by hanging him from a tree can you honestly say that the mod was just telling the difference between a white man and a black man?

Of course context determines meaning. When you discriminate against sin, that is positive discrimination and falls under the definition:

2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3a : the act of making or perceiving a difference : the act of discriminating
1. The act of distinguishing; the act of making or observing a difference; distinction; as the discrimination between right and wrong.

 

[Quartermaine]

Of course context determines meaning. When you discriminate against sin, that is positive discrimination and falls under the definition:

2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3a : the act of making or perceiving a difference : the act of discriminating
1. The act of distinguishing; the act of making or observing a difference; distinction; as the discrimination between right and wrong.

in the scenario a black man becomes the victim of discrimination when a mod of bible carrying white people randomly snatch him from the street and murder him by hanging him from a tree can you honestly say that the mod was just telling the difference between a white man and a black man?

how about an honest answer?

 

[Aldebaran]

in the scenario a black man becomes the victim of discrimination when a mod of bible carrying white people randomly snatch him from the street and murder him by hanging him from a tree can you honestly say that the mod was just telling the difference between a white man and a black man?

how about an honest answer?

Not decorating a cake with homosexual themed words or phrases is hardly comparable to hanging a black guy from a tree and murdering him. But that's how far off-topic you have gotten. So how about getting back to what this thread is about?

 

[Quartermaine]

Not decorating a cake with homosexual themed words or phrases is hardly comparable to hanging a black guy from a tree and murdering him. But that's how far off-topic you have gotten. So how about getting back to what this thread is about?

so that would be a no on the honest answer thing then.

 

[Aldebaran]

so that would be a no on the honest answer thing then.

I didn't even see an honest question to give such an answer. However, I did address the fallacy of the question that was asked.

 

[Quartermaine]

I didn't even see an honest question to give such an answer. However, I did address the fallacy of the question that was asked.

yeah ... right

 

[Aldebaran]

yeah ... right

I'm glad we agree. It's been a pleasure having this conversation with you.

 

[AACJ]

in the scenario a black man becomes the victim of discrimination when a mod of bible carrying white people randomly snatch him from the street and murder him by hanging him from a tree can you honestly say that the mod was just telling the difference between a white man and a black man?

how about an honest answer?

You have to get away from your strawmen.

 

[Quartermaine]

I'm glad we agree. It's been a pleasure having this conversation with you.

The question is still there. You've played this stupid word game just like AACJ is doing now. if you claim that that the definition of discrimination is just about telling two different things from one another then in the scenario where a mod of bible carrying white people randomly snatch him from the street and murder him by hanging him from a tree he was not the victim of discrimination because all those good people were doing is just telling the difference between a white man and a black man.

 

[Quartermaine]

You have to get away from your strawmen.

you need to educate yourself
a strawman is giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.


deflection is not an honest answer.

 

[Aldebaran]

The question is still there. You've played this stupid word game just like AACJ is doing now. if you claim that that the definition of discrimination is just about telling two different things from one another then in the scenario where a mod of bible carrying white people randomly snatch him from the street and murder him by hanging him from a tree he was not the victim of discrimination because all those good people were doing is just telling the difference between a white man and a black man.

In the unrelated scenario you provide, the "good people" (as you referred to them) snatched a guy from the street and hung him from a tree. However, your scenario did not say anything about the theory that they did it because he was black. So even your own scenario fails in that it presumes the actions taken by the white people were based on the skin color of the victim.
But that's the type of problems you run into when you automatically assume that every decision made by white people is based on someone else's skin color--the race card overplayed, once again.
Now, can we get back on topic?

 

[AACJ]

Three important cases concerning the issue of the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is currently before SCOTUS. This is a landmark hearing.

The underlying issues is the question of whether or not the word "sex" in Title VII refers only to one's biological sex or also to sexual orientation/gender identity.

Oral arguments for theses three cases will be presented before SCOTUS tomorrow (Tuesday/10-8-19).

Put on your prayer caps, Church. Christian business owners have been under attack for a while now. You know what's at stake.

I am praying the Lord will be with the lawyers arguing on behalf of the Christian business owners and help them argue well. Spiritual warfare is a major factor in this battle. Praying the Lord will influence the minds and hearts of the Justices.

Symposium: How the Title VII trilogy may test the court - SCOTUSblog

"Word is out that the Title VII trilogy set for argument in the Supreme Court on October 8 — Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia; Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC — is crucially significant because the court will decide the scope of workplace protection for LGBT employees. And indeed, these three cases are highly significant, but also for a very different reason: How they are decided will signal whether the court is inclined to stay in its constitutionally assigned lane as expositor of the law and avoid veering into the policy-making lane reserved for Congress."

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual “because of such individual’s … sex.” The question presented in these three cases is whether this language also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity."

Summary of issues:

Symposium: How the Title VII trilogy may test the court - SCOTUSblog


Case 1
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia - SCOTUSblog
Case 2
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda - SCOTUSblog
Case 3
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - SCOTUSblog

 

[SavedByGrace3]

"sexual orientation" is a preference. You cannot force others to cater to your preferences.
You can't force a car dealer to cater to your preference to a certain brand of car.
You can't force a restaurant to cater to your preference to a certain kind of food.
You can't force anyone to cater to your whims and preference.
Preference is not the same as a right.

 

[Quartermaine]

In the unrelated scenario you provide, the "good people" (as you referred to them) snatched a guy from the street and hung him from a tree. However, your scenario did not say anything about the theory that they did it because he was black. So even your own scenario fails in that it presumes the actions taken by the white people were based on the skin color of the victim.

that is what lynching is: White people killing a black man just because he is black

if you claim that that the definition of discrimination is just about telling two different things from one another then lynchings have nothing to do with race or at all

 

[Quartermaine]

Three important cases concerning the issue of the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is currently before SCOTUS. This is a landmark hearing.

The underlying issues is the question of whether or not the word "sex" in Title VII refers only to one's biological sex or also to sexual orientation/gender identity.

Oral arguments for theses three cases will be presented before SCOTUS tomorrow (Tuesday/10-8-19).

Put on your prayer caps, Church. Christian business owners have been under attack for a while now. You know what's at stake.

I am praying the Lord will be with the lawyers arguing on behalf of the Christian business owners and help them argue well. Spiritual warfare is a major factor in this battle. Praying the Lord will influence the minds and hearts of the Justices.

Symposium: How the Title VII trilogy may test the court - SCOTUSblog

"Word is out that the Title VII trilogy set for argument in the Supreme Court on October 8 — Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia; Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC — is crucially significant because the court will decide the scope of workplace protection for LGBT employees. And indeed, these three cases are highly significant, but also for a very different reason: How they are decided will signal whether the court is inclined to stay in its constitutionally assigned lane as expositor of the law and avoid veering into the policy-making lane reserved for Congress."

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual “because of such individual’s … sex.” The question presented in these three cases is whether this language also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity."

Summary of issues:

Symposium: How the Title VII trilogy may test the court - SCOTUSblog


Case 1
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia - SCOTUSblog
Case 2
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda - SCOTUSblog
Case 3
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - SCOTUSblog

so you are praying for the right to fire people from their jobs for the single reason that they are members of a minority.

 

[Aldebaran]

that is what lynching is: White people killing a black man just because he is black

if you claim that that the definition of discrimination is just about telling two different things from one another then lynchings have nothing to do with race or at all

Just as your repeated off-topic posts have nothing to do with this thread at all.
So for the last time, can we get back on topic?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

In the unrelated scenario you provide, the "good people" (as you referred to them) snatched a guy from the street and hung him from a tree.

Obviously if they did such a thing, they were not "good" people.

 

[Quartermaine]

"sexual orientation" is a preference.

preference: a greater liking for one alternative over another or others

so you are saying you could change your orientation at whim. When exactly did you decide you preferred heterosexuality of any other orientation?