JFS

  • ****
  • 8172 Posts
    • View Profile
"Influencing people for the good of myself is manipulation; influencing people for the good of the kingdom is motivation." -Alistair Begg

1

ChristianJR4

  • **
  • 698 Posts
    • View Profile
And if one is able to refuse service on the basis of the content and nature of the products they are asked to produce, then the market will self-regulate. For example, if a guy is way too sensitive over a broad range of topics, he may refuse many people service, but you realize that this guy will go bankrupt rather quickly?

It feels as if you're implying that when people are given the rights to refuse to make products which violate their consience, then there would be anarchy and everyone will refuse anyone service, because people dislike many things in general. No, it will be self-regulated. If you refuse service to many people, then fewer will come, your customers will be narrowed down to exceptions. There will be always who are after the profit and won't refuse service.

One of the express purposes of anti-discrimination laws are to ensure that services are freely available in the market, and to specifically protect classes of people from the burdens they may otherwise face if such services were to be denied to them. To be honest, I didn't think too much of this purpose until I read the New Mexico Supreme Court Decision in the Elaine Photophaphy vs Vanessa Willock case (where photography services were denied to a lesbian couple). Basically, the point of making services freely available to people is to protect them from unwanted economic hardships that cause disruption to their lives due to the fact that they are of that class. I find this point to be fairly unobjectionable if one agrees that people ought not face economic or survival hardships due to the ability to obtain services that available, which most people would in principle agree with, myself included.


To make this point clear think of this scenario. Imagine a single grocery store in a small isolated town refusing to sell its products and services to a certain class of people for whatever reason. Such a denial of service might prove disastrous to that class of people. It could well mean that the most basic of necessities are out of reach for them; that simply providing food on the table is now very difficult, even if money isn't at all an issue. Now one might differentiate a single grocery store providing the only source of food from a more expressive type business like those in the wedding industry but the economic hardships are still potentially present in both, though obviously in different degrees. For example, what if that same isolated town has only one business that provides wedding services (ie. photography, catering etc)? If a same-sex couple living in that town seeks to get married and use their services but is denied due to the nature of their relationship then the consequences of that could well be economic hardship for that couple. The couple may be forced to go out of town to obtain the same services. And even that's not guaranteed. Many businesses offering wedding services only operate within a certain distance (usually locally). If this hypothetical town was significantly far from a populated urban center, and the same-sex couple only wished to get married in that town, it may well be the case that other wedding businesses outside that town aren't willing to travel the distance to this town provide their services. The couple's situation becomes even more difficult in this area. Again, the economic hardship on this couple may be significant, which is precisely what anti-discrimination laws are designed in part to prevent, among other things.


What the above points out is that it's not enough to just let the market self regulate. In urban settings where many different kinds of the same service are available, self-regulation may present no difficulties or problems at all for the diverse people who live there, but in other geographical and regional contexts, it might be quite different. It might be the difference between merely going down the street to get a different service in one setting and not receiving any services at all in another.



2
Well, that deescalated quickly....


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/24/theres-a-big-development-in-the-debate-surrounding-the-christian-ministers-who-refuse-to-marry-gays-inside-their-for-profit-chapel/



Good for them to not be pushed around.
If a Christian Minister doesn't wish to marry someone, he has the right to say no.
As I said before, when me and my ex-wife was looking for a church to marry us, almost every single one of them declined to marry someone on the spot and wished to council us first to determine if we were actually ready to marry.
Wished I would have taken that as a sign to not marry her, we divorced a year later.
Lol
But yah, we had no basis to sue those who refused to marry us on the fly, so why should gays have extra special rights?
BTW, creating a lawsuit never even entered our perspective, we completely understood where they was coming from.
Quote
Lawyer: ACLU Is ‘Terrified’ and ‘Running Scared’ From the Case of the Christian Ministers Who Refuse to Marry Gays Inside Their Chapel

In my opinion, marriages should require some sort of counciling first, maybe the divorce rates would actually go down.
Those drive through marriages in Los Veges are ridiculous.
Get drunk, meet someone, and wake up married to a total stranger.
Such a mockery of marriage.
If you believe you know everything and have life figured out, you do, because having that attitude leaves no room to learn anything else.

3

Crash Test

  • *****
  • 20719 Posts
    • View Profile

Actually, Crash, these laws aren't anti-SSM, you qualifying them as such is only to attach more emotional force to your words, however it is not the actual case here. These laws are anti-SSM as much as the definition of a cook is anti-all-professions-other-than-cook. No. Being a cook has a fixed definition - a person who has the ability to cook meals and its definition isn't there to be anti-people-who-cannot-cook-meals, but to mean what its definition means. But those who cannot cook do not go to ask those who can to change the definition of cook, or the very profession of cooks, because it discriminates against them(who cannot cook).


Well, no.  It's more like someone walks into a restaurant and asks for a new meal, let's say a cronut, and the chef says "Nope, that's new, so it isn't food".

Quote

So, marriage is between a man and a woman, because that's what its purpose is, not because people want to exclude same sex marriages. The understanding of marriage has been such even before tehre were gay activists to lobby for SSM.


The purpose of marriage is to be between a man and a woman?  That isn't a purpose, it's a description.

Quote

And for you to say that it is harmful, because it doesn't include people who wish to be included is simply not understanding semantics and language and its purpose, as well as the institution of marriage itself. When people decided that lawyer would mean a person who studies and applies the law, they didn't do it so that they exclude metal smithers, or carpenters, but because they wanted this word to have the purpose to describe what they wanted it to describe. Right?


Yeah, and originally women weren't allowed to be lawyers.  But we changed it, because we aren't bound to such definitions.

Quote

And in this case - marriage as an institution, ritual and concept has always been between man and woman. Just as someone who can cook has always been called cook, not to discriminate against other pofessions, but becuase this is what the purpose of the concept/word/definition is.


You're really quite fixated on the rigidity of definitions.  It isn't a thing.

Quote

You intertwining interracial weddings with SSM is also wrong, because interracial weddings issues are based on rase differences, something which the institution isn't concerned about and doesn't have a criteria about. Besides, discrimination based on rase is wrong, regardless of the area in question - whether that be weddings, evaluating job applicants, providing service of any sort. Whilst refusing to marry a gay couple is on the basis of the concept of marriage, not based on the person who is about to get married.


And refusal of SSM is based on gender, which is also wrong.

Quote

If you change marriage to include same sex couples, then it will then be no longer marriage, just as if you change definition of cook to include people who cannot cook, will no longer be cook.


Well no... it won't.  That's not how words, or traditions, or institutions work.  Change doesn't equal "end".

Quote

And yes, they are asking me to change my concept, because there are legal consequences and I will be persecuted by the law if I refused to marry same sex couples. They can easily sue me, because that would be treated by the law as breaking of the law - since I am refusing to apply the legal definition of the word in my working enviroment. Yes, personally I may hold to the definition, but the legal treatment of the word woldn't care if I perceive of marriage as between only man and woman only, just as they don't care if I define murder as "being sweet to another person" if they sue me for killing someone.

If you want to marry people legally in the eyes of the state, yes you would have to (possibly).  If you want to marry people in the eyes of God, no one is going to stop you.
-- This user will return on the twenty-fourth of July --

4

joey

  • ***
  • 1138 Posts
    • View Profile
changing the definition of marriage to include SSM doesn't mean it affects anything or anybody else. It just means now same sex couples can get married to each other.

5

Trinity

  • *****
  • 28422 Posts
    • View Profile
changing the definition of marriage to include SSM doesn't mean it affects anything or anybody else. It just means now same sex couples can get married to each other.

It certainly has affected ministers/pastors.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1

6

Crash Test

  • *****
  • 20719 Posts
    • View Profile

It certainly has affected ministers/pastors.

Business owners, who are offering state marriage, in certain areas, possibly.
-- This user will return on the twenty-fourth of July --

7

Trinity

  • *****
  • 28422 Posts
    • View Profile

It certainly has affected ministers/pastors.

Business owners, who are offering state marriage, in certain areas, possibly.

Even with that in mind, joey's claim that ''changing the definition of marriage to include SSM doesn't mean it affects anything or anybody else'' is false.

1. X does not affect anybody.
2. X affects business owners.
3. Therefore (1) is false.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1

8

Crash Test

  • *****
  • 20719 Posts
    • View Profile

Even with that in mind, joey's claim that ''changing the definition of marriage to include SSM doesn't mean it affects anything or anybody else'' is false.

1. X does not affect anybody.
2. X affects business owners.
3. Therefore (1) is false.

I agree.  This isn't something I wanted to see happen.  I hadn't considered for-profit organisations having issues here.  I was mainly picturing churches, who I don't think should be forced to perform the ceremony.
-- This user will return on the twenty-fourth of July --

9

It certainly has affected ministers/pastors.

Business owners, who are offering state marriage, in certain areas, possibly.

Even with that in mind, joey's claim that ''changing the definition of marriage to include SSM doesn't mean it affects anything or anybody else'' is false.

1. X does not affect anybody.
2. X affects business owners.
3. Therefore (1) is false.

Exactly.
I don't care what people do, and if gays wish to form a union and have that piece of paper, so be it.
The fact that they want extra special rights and may actually be purposely going to churches and Christian run businesses, just to lure a lawsuit by demanding extra special rights, is what I have a problem with.

david silverman's whole existence revolves around doing this and has more bogus lawsuits going that any other organization in the history of mankind.
So it wouldnt surprise me if he is part of it as well.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 11:32:05 pm by Y U NO love thy neighbor »
If you believe you know everything and have life figured out, you do, because having that attitude leaves no room to learn anything else.

10

kravarnik

  • ****
  • 5933 Posts
  • Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me!
    • View Profile
And if one is able to refuse service on the basis of the content and nature of the products they are asked to produce, then the market will self-regulate. For example, if a guy is way too sensitive over a broad range of topics, he may refuse many people service, but you realize that this guy will go bankrupt rather quickly?

It feels as if you're implying that when people are given the rights to refuse to make products which violate their consience, then there would be anarchy and everyone will refuse anyone service, because people dislike many things in general. No, it will be self-regulated. If you refuse service to many people, then fewer will come, your customers will be narrowed down to exceptions. There will be always who are after the profit and won't refuse service.

One of the express purposes of anti-discrimination laws are to ensure that services are freely available in the market, and to specifically protect classes of people from the burdens they may otherwise face if such services were to be denied to them. To be honest, I didn't think too much of this purpose until I read the New Mexico Supreme Court Decision in the Elaine Photophaphy vs Vanessa Willock case (where photography services were denied to a lesbian couple). Basically, the point of making services freely available to people is to protect them from unwanted economic hardships that cause disruption to their lives due to the fact that they are of that class. I find this point to be fairly unobjectionable if one agrees that people ought not face economic or survival hardships due to the ability to obtain services that available, which most people would in principle agree with, myself included.


To make this point clear think of this scenario. Imagine a single grocery store in a small isolated town refusing to sell its products and services to a certain class of people for whatever reason. Such a denial of service might prove disastrous to that class of people. It could well mean that the most basic of necessities are out of reach for them; that simply providing food on the table is now very difficult, even if money isn't at all an issue. Now one might differentiate a single grocery store providing the only source of food from a more expressive type business like those in the wedding industry but the economic hardships are still potentially present in both, though obviously in different degrees. For example, what if that same isolated town has only one business that provides wedding services (ie. photography, catering etc)? If a same-sex couple living in that town seeks to get married and use their services but is denied due to the nature of their relationship then the consequences of that could well be economic hardship for that couple. The couple may be forced to go out of town to obtain the same services. And even that's not guaranteed. Many businesses offering wedding services only operate within a certain distance (usually locally). If this hypothetical town was significantly far from a populated urban center, and the same-sex couple only wished to get married in that town, it may well be the case that other wedding businesses outside that town aren't willing to travel the distance to this town provide their services. The couple's situation becomes even more difficult in this area. Again, the economic hardship on this couple may be significant, which is precisely what anti-discrimination laws are designed in part to prevent, among other things.


What the above points out is that it's not enough to just let the market self regulate. In urban settings where many different kinds of the same service are available, self-regulation may present no difficulties or problems at all for the diverse people who live there, but in other geographical and regional contexts, it might be quite different. It might be the difference between merely going down the street to get a different service in one setting and not receiving any services at all in another.


Uhmm, the very part you quoted is saying that people should be able to refuse based on PRODUCTS, not on PEOPLE ordering the products.


Essentially, you're thinking of it as descriminating against people, whilst I'm propagating descriminationg against IDEAS. It may sound bad, but one ought to be able to refuse to make products, or give service, when it this product, or service, is explicitly supporing an idea, a belief, a worldview, which is contrary to the owner of the shop.

For example - it's the millionth example, I swear, why people do not get it? - if you own a T-shirt making shop and a guy comes with a picture of you - he took a picture of you while you were unaware that you're being photographed - and asked you to print the picture on a T-shirt, with the following inscription below it "This guy is a dumbass, don't go to his shop!" Now, you ought to be able to refuse, but not on the basis of the personality of the person ordering the T-shirt, but based on the content of the T-shirt.


Once again, do not read as if I'm saying people should be able to refuse service to lesbian couples, for example, because of their homosexuality. So, the grocery store example of yours doesn't hold, because I'm saying people should be able to deny PRODUCTS that go against their conscience, whilst grocery store sells... groceries, so on what basis they can refuse service to gay people, or whatever kind of people they do not like, or refuse to sell them bread? How is bread supporting any idea, worldview, or whatever? If the grocery owner was so against some product, he wouldn't have it in the store in the first place.
"And even if you crush my body and drain it 'til the last drop - you can never touch my spirit, you can never touch my soul. No matter how bleak or how hopeless, no matter how hard or how far - you can never break my conation. Tear the will apart from desire." Insomnium - Weather the storm

11

kravarnik

  • ****
  • 5933 Posts
  • Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me!
    • View Profile
Also, Crash, do not expect an answer to your latest reply to me in this thread. Your respnse is pretty much a waste of time to even consder replying to. You didn't even try to deal with my points, but responded with one-liners that do not explain anything. You barely even commented on my essential points.

I'm sorry, I don't think you understand how marriage works and what tradition is. ANd that tradition means a lot to a great number of people - way more than the minority of homosexuals, or atheists - so, in your eyes you're not doing anything wrong. But there are traditionalists who have as much right to keep things as they are as progressive minorities.


Once again, I'll repeat this. Marriage isn't defined as such as to exlude SS couples, but because the purpose of it is to be between a man and a woman. It wasn't made so that gay people may be together. Just as science is about people who do science - and those who cannot do science do not go to scienists and ask them to change science to include also people who cannot do science - so, they do science and they didn't define it as such just to exclude people who cannot do science.
"And even if you crush my body and drain it 'til the last drop - you can never touch my spirit, you can never touch my soul. No matter how bleak or how hopeless, no matter how hard or how far - you can never break my conation. Tear the will apart from desire." Insomnium - Weather the storm

12

Crash Test

  • *****
  • 20719 Posts
    • View Profile
Also, Crash, do not expect an answer to your latest reply to me in this thread. Your respnse is pretty much a waste of time to even consder replying to. You didn't even try to deal with my points, but responded with one-liners that do not explain anything. You barely even commented on my essential points.

I'm sorry, I don't think you understand how marriage works and what tradition is. ANd that tradition means a lot to a great number of people - way more than the minority of homosexuals, or atheists - so, in your eyes you're not doing anything wrong. But there are traditionalists who have as much right to keep things as they are as progressive minorities.


Once again, I'll repeat this. Marriage isn't defined as such as to exlude SS couples, but because the purpose of it is to be between a man and a woman. It wasn't made so that gay people may be together. Just as science is about people who do science - and those who cannot do science do not go to scienists and ask them to change science to include also people who cannot do science - so, they do science and they didn't define it as such just to exclude people who cannot do science.

It doesn't take more than one line to note that what you've said is false in many cases.  Your idea that words don't change is, simply, not true.  Your notion that institutions don't change is, simply, not true.  Your notion that marriage's "purpose" is to be between a man and a woman isn't even not true, its a category mistake.  Given these are the three pillars of your argument, I don't know what you expect me to respond with.
-- This user will return on the twenty-fourth of July --

13
Also, Crash, do not expect an answer to your latest reply to me in this thread. Your respnse is pretty much a waste of time to even consder replying to. You didn't even try to deal with my points, but responded with one-liners that do not explain anything. You barely even commented on my essential points.

I'm sorry, I don't think you understand how marriage works and what tradition is. ANd that tradition means a lot to a great number of people - way more than the minority of homosexuals, or atheists - so, in your eyes you're not doing anything wrong. But there are traditionalists who have as much right to keep things as they are as progressive minorities.


Once again, I'll repeat this. Marriage isn't defined as such as to exlude SS couples, but because the purpose of it is to be between a man and a woman. It wasn't made so that gay people may be together. Just as science is about people who do science - and those who cannot do science do not go to scienists and ask them to change science to include also people who cannot do science - so, they do science and they didn't define it as such just to exclude people who cannot do science.

You are exactly correct, but traditional values do not mean anything to some people and more and more, people are demanding extra special rights to include them as well.
The whole SSM thing could be resolved if they would just come up with their own title for it, instead of borrowing from non-same sex couples.
As I said, I know it is a lost cause and dont really care, but understand why many people do care.
I am more concerned with the extra special rights that come with this and gays demanding religious people to marry them and go against their morals instead of just going to a non-religious person who can preform the "union"
Consider the very foundation of the church itself though.
Not only do some religious people exploit it for their desires, we now have atheists borrowing the name just to mock religious people, instead of them actually coming up with their own title for the building they wish to gather in.
So, we are to change the definition of that now too?

Quote
A church building, often simply called a church, is a building used for religious activities, particularly worship services. The term in its architectural sense is most often used by Christians to refer to their religious buildings but can be used by other religions.[1] In traditional Christian architecture, the church is often arranged in the shape of a Christian cross. When viewed from plan view the longest part of a cross is represented by the aisle and the junction of the cross is located at the altar area. Towers or domes are often added with the intention of directing the eye of the viewer towards the heavens and inspiring church visitors. Modern church buildings have a variety of architectural styles and layouts; many buildings that were designed for other purposes have now been converted for church use; and, similarly, many original church buildings have been put to other uses. The earliest identified Christian church was founded between 233 and 256. During the 11th through 14th centuries, a wave of building of cathedrals and smaller parish churches occurred across Western Europe. A cathedral is a church, usually Roman Catholic, Anglican, Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox, housing the seat of a bishop.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2014, 05:21:55 am by Y U NO love thy neighbor »
If you believe you know everything and have life figured out, you do, because having that attitude leaves no room to learn anything else.