This Week In Doom: All Things Gay & Equality

This could be a Bayesian’s nightmare for its (apparent) precision alone, but this has been making the rounds in the reactosphere this week: The Inappropriately Excluded. He seems to have genuine evidence that idocracy is under way.

(Ack that link doesn’t seem to have work’t.. http://polymatharchives.blogspot.in/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html)

An interesting link, Nick, although the fact that it is an extended pitch for The Polymathic Institute is a distraction. Maybe Willis Eschenbach can add his insight on this matter. Students should be allowed to skip grades as they used to and the best way to that end would be to abolish compulsory schooling, i.e. the method of guns and badges and enforced equality. Another problem is credentialism, a method seemingly designed to prevent hiring based on talent. My Father was the last generation, for now, to create a successful career out of little more than raw talent.

“The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” — Aristotle

The strange thing about intelligence is that, regardless of one’s own abilities, they are personally considered at least on par with (and often higher than) most other persons. Strength however never seems to be regarded in this fashion and people are quite OK with that.

Never trusted IQ scores. They are obviously normalized to some standard but discovering that standard is difficult. That they are now re-normalized within the population that taking the concurrently taking the tests means one batch of IQ scores can’t be compared to any other batch. SAT scores likewise.

OT: I wish you would change the font color of a-tags. Perhaps a darker gray or maybe even blue or green. The key though is darker. The current scheme looks like expanses of white space unless I get up close and personal. If I didn’t know better, the gray marriage with a-tags is being whitewashed. An abomination for sure as gray marriage should be reserved for the elderly.

Briggs are you aware of the “gay starts in womb”-hypothesis?
http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb

I never liked the argument over whether being gay was something one was born to or not. It doesn’t matter. One can no more “choose” their sexual preference than they can choose their parents. Besides, if there was a choice to be had, I can’t imagine very many people would ever choose to be something so very many backwards people despise, and even call “suffering” as if it was a disease.

The idea that everyone be treated equally, or that people should have equal rights really seems to bother these backwards people as well, and they take pains to misconstrue and misrepresent the idea so they can complain that somehow treating everyone equally means treating them badly, or at least not in the superior way they believe they deserve. Of course, by equality people mean equality of rights and opportunities, not of particular skills or abilities. Only a moron would think otherwise. But then, only a moron would think someone can “choose” their sexual preferences.

JMJ

For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 1Cor 12:14-17

Knowledgeable and wise Christians understand the value of inequality, both for the variety of abilities and the necessity of unity for the church (ie, the body of Christ, the people; not the man-made hierarchical governing structures) to fulfill its purpose.

It’s an ironic curiosity that the drive for absolute egalitarianism should be accompanied by the equally manic drive for “diversity” among the intelligensia. Of course, they don’t accept the plain meaning of the word, but there are none so blind as those who will not see.

1) try arguing your case using gay women instead of gay men.

2) why the Doom? That’s a Global Warmist kind of argument. I must be true because End of the World.

Joseph Sobran sums up the race to mediocrity (excuse me, egalitarianism), as refereed by our educational institutions: “In 100 years we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to teaching Remedial English in college.”

Dr. Briggs,
Anybody whose IQ is higher than their body temperature knows that men are better at math than women. Look at the results of the Putnam competition,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lowell_Putnam_Mathematical_Competition

@JMJ,

Choice is not that simple.

1. Choice can happen at a subconscious level.

2. It doesn’t have to be the result of a single choice. One choice made can limit the options available in the next choice. Choices made can drift you in a particular direction even if that direction wasn’t explicitly chosen.

3. Whether a single choice or a chain of choices, that choice or choices can happen before one is aware of societies disapproval of being gay.

4. Ending up gay could be a secondary unanticipated consequence of a choice (or choices #2) that was made for other reasons.

5. Some choices are hard to undo, others are impossible to undo. So even if there is some component of choice in being gay that would not automatically imply that one can go back and choose otherwise because one is now unhappy with the consequences of that choice.

One problem with the Gospel of Equality is the forced conversions.

Matt, this whole discriminating-against-people-because-of-their-choice argument is barely and only superficially less offensive than flat-out stated bigotry. Really. I got it.

JMJ

Briggs,

It is very interesting that you don’t jump in the crazy train that is global warming or climate change, but end up jumping in an even crazier train that is doom by egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism is not about everyone being equal but about everyone having equal opportunity and under the law.

To my surprise I actually started off agreeing with Jersey’s comment, at least the first part, but then of course, he manages to contradict himself in his closing sentence.

The biological basis of sexual preference is a red herring. It’s an apologetic tactic of the gay community. It’s a concession that yes they ‘commit evil’, but because they can’t help it, it’s not really ‘evil’ after all. My view is that one’s sexual preference is one’s sexual preference and it doesn’t require justification. It’s only an issue of practical concern if it’s in contradiction of your religious affiliation or if you still exist in the child-like state of being worried about what other people might think of such matters.

There are people who do choose their sexual preference. Bisexuals. They contradict the assertion that one cannot “choose” one’s sexual orientation, as sometimes their choice is heterosexual and at other times homosexual. Although one preference may be stronger than the other. Human sexual orientation is a spectrum. It’s not one thing or its opposite. People on the tail of such a distribution (even if it’s an inverse normal distribution or some other flavour of distribution) shouldn’t be pretending there is no middle because it’s inconvenient to their politics.

Briggs,

The danger here is the The Apes Do It So It Is Fine For Us Fallacy.

The danger there is My Fallacies Are Better Than What I Say Your Fallacies Are Fallacy. Cry slippery slope if you wish, but history suggests that an intense unwillingness to leave others to their own devices is bad juju.

The idea (rife in Scientism) that genes ‘explain’ anything interesting (except for certain subjects of very narrow medical interest) is something that is rife in the popular mind, and also regrettably a confusion common among academics who should know better.

1. “We’ve discovered a gene that explains X”

2. “Great, why is that gene there and not some other gene? How does the gene actually cause or is linked to X?”

3. “We have no idea!”

Too many people are impressed by (1) and don’t ask (2), which if they did, would immediately lead to the discovery of (3) – ‘genes explain this or that’ is the perfect pretend non-explanation for everything.

Will,

What I find to be the most similar to gay people is handedness.

No one denies that left handed people are born that way. It has nothing to do with how they are raised or with genetics.

Like for homosexual and heterosexual twins you have left and right handed twins. Just like you have bisexual people and you have ambidextrous people.

There are no biological explanation for either gays or lefties and in both cases there are no explanation why would anyone choose the hardship of the difference over the easiest choice of doing things like everyone else.

Can you provide any valid argument as to why left handed people would be born that way and gays wouldn’t?

Will Nitschke,

Great, why is that gene there and not some other gene?

I’m reminded of an old Cosby bit, “Daddy … why is there air?”

I would like to think my position is informed by my academic studies of the cognitive sciences. My impression is that even Dr Briggs does not dismiss a biological basis for homosexuality. I would assume his argument might be that nature does not equal predestination. There may be genetic markers for psychopathology but this does not mean that anyone possessing those markers will become a psychopath. In a like manner being left handed doesn’t imply you are a latent homosexual. This is where choice enters the picture. Clearly it has been my impression when in (admittedly very limited) contact with homosexual males, that some, certainly not all, carry themselves with certain femine characteristics that suggest to me a biological basis. But it is very easy to fool oneself when trying to separate nature from nurture.

If there’s one thing for certain conservatives do not understand, it is sex.

JMJ

Jersey McJones
APRIL 5, 2015 AT 1:51 AM
If there’s one thing for certain conservatives do not understand, it is sex.

But they sure spend a lot of time thinking about it. Especially what other people do.

Briggs,

The bible condemns adultery, the drunk and greed a lot more than homosexuality ( even so that it doesn’t condemn it directly).

Why is it that only homosexual suffers denial of services. I don’t remember pizzas restaurant refusing to serve the drunks, or cater to adulterers?

Why should people who doesn’t share your beliefs lose there liberty over yours?

Very poor argument regarding the left handed and pants on. I don’t see you condemn none adulterer.

BTW, looking here it seems that what you ar doing, judging others, is a lot worst than gay sex could be. How come Christian can choose what verses they want to respect.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/judging_others

There are more than these

Matthew 7:1-5 ESV / 2,978 helpful votes

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

Luke 6:37 ESV / 2,199 helpful votes

“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;

John 7:24 ESV / 1,747 helpful votes

Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

James 4:11-12 ESV / 1,271 helpful votes

Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

James 4:12 ESV / 1,205 helpful votes

There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

Romans 2:1-3 ESV / 771 helpful votes

Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?

Ephesians 4:29 ESV / 690 helpful votes

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

Romans 14:1-13 ESV / 617 helpful votes

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. …

Matthew 7:5 ESV / 531 helpful votes

You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

Matthew 7:1-2 ESV / 481 helpful votes

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

John 8:7 ESV / 445 helpful votes

And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Matthew 7:1 ESV / 303 helpful votes

“Judge not, that you be not judged.

Luke 6:31 ESV / 294 helpful votes

And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

James 1:26 ESV / 283 helpful votes

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.

Titus 3:2-7 ESV / 272 helpful votes

To speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, …

Proverbs 31:9 ESV / 257 helpful votes

Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.

Matthew 7:1-29 ESV / 254 helpful votes

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. …

Matthew 6:14-15 ESV / 248 helpful votes

For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Luke 6:37-42 ESV / 213 helpful votes

“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.” He also told them a parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when

“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;

That seems to apply to that pizzeria

Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not .. That seems to apply to that pizzeria

Indeed yet you want to do it anyway?

Sylvain,

You’re confusing a common precept of the Christian religion to not have its members individually judge each other, and have somehow muddled yourself into thinking that therefore God, Jesus, the Church Fathers, etc., should not be passing judgement. Essentially your argument is that religious people are free to participate or encourage (or probably) engage in evil, as it’s not up to them determine what is or is not moral or evil. This is getting really really silly now….

“Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind,…. By carnal knowledge of them, and carnal copulation with them, and mixing bodies in like manner: this is the sin commonly called sodomy, from the inhabitants of Sodom, greatly addicted to it, for which their city was destroyed by fire: those that are guilty of this sin, are, by the apostle, called “abusers of themselves with mankind”, 1 Corinthians 6:9,

it is abomination; it is so to God, as the above instance of his vengeance shows, and ought to be abominable to men, as being not only contrary to the law of God, but even contrary to nature itself, and what is never to be observed among brute creatures. ” Leviticus 18:22

As I already advised you, you cannot perform exegesis on religious texts (so that you end up with a warmer cuddlier version of the religion, compatible with your personal views) as a valid form of argument. Only the Church itself could perform an act.

Dav,

First, I’m not the one who claims to be living by the precepts of religious belief.

Second, I’m not the one denying service to someone based on these precepts. I would have no problem selling my product to someone I don’t like or disagree with.

Third, only three verses of the New testament can be interpreted to be associated to homosexuality, while you have numerous verses that condemn the judgement of other.

Homosexuality is a sin among other and is associated to the sin of lust. This is not even the worst of the deadly sin. A sin is not a lifestyle but the act itself. The only way that one person can be participating in sinful act is by doing the act. In the case of gay wedding there is no sex during the ceremony so participating to a wedding can in no way be interpreted participating in a sinful act.

A business owners that lives by its religious beliefs should deny service to every one, since everyone is a sinner.

“The only way that one person can be participating in sinful act is by doing the act.”

Examples of the application of your argument: If I sell a gun to someone I know who will commit a murder, I’m not a participant in that murder. E.g., knowingly facilitating murder does not implicate me in the crime.

Problem with this argument is that it’s wrong from a religious perspective, from a moral perspective and wrong from a lawful perspective. Really anyone over the age of 12 should not be putting forward an argument as confused as this one…

Will,

The bible is pretty clear that you shall not jude other has it was pointed by the many verses. Judgment is reserved to god, not individual. And god judgment is to refuse the kingdom of heaven to those that does not respect its law.

Unlike many believes the Bible and New Testament were not written by God but by fallible man that use the book to take control over a vast population.

Christianism was very open at its start incorporating different beliefs has its own (Christmas on december 25 was the birth date of Mithra). Back then, everyone was Christian they just didn’t they were until the inquisition started in the West to homogenize the Christian beliefs which were very different from region to region.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/what-the-new-testament-says-about-homosexuality/

As this link shows the word homosexual was introduced in the 19th century translation of the Bible which was done after the psychiatry defined the abnormal behavior of homosexuality.

This is how the the King James bible defined 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 before the revised translation:

”Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,”

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_1-Corinthians-6-9/

I really don’t know were you took your corinthian verse but they seemed to be from very recent (bad) translation that modify the intent.

This the new international version (I would say motivated interpretation instead of translation):

“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men”

Will,

Wow, anyone that sells guns should expect that it would be used to kill someone. I invite you to try to take the gun away from the religious right in the USA. If you do, you should wear a very harden bullet proof gear.

Will,

BTW you didn’t answer my handedness analogy I posted above

Sylvain,

“Judgment is reserved to god, not individual.”

This is plainly and absurdly wrong: you may be judged by your priest, by the Church Fathers, by the Pope. That’s why the Church issues penances. You are also expected to exercise correct moral behaviour in your own actions. The best you can argue here is that it is not your duty to try to prevent the gay couple from having sex. But it *IS* your moral requirement not to participate or facilitate an immoral act. You’re being ridiculous and you should cut your losses now and drop this line of argument. You’re of course welcome to try other lines of argument but this one is frankly idiotic. If you want to put together a (not absurd) line of argument that conforms to your position, I think I can help you with that. But not if you persist down this road.

“Wow, anyone that sells guns should expect that it would be used to kill someone.”

If you modify the argument to take some weaker form, this shows to everyone reading what you wrote, that your own argument has failed. It’s better here for you not to try to counter the argument, than misrepresent it. I clearly stated that it is an immoral act to sell a gun to a person who you know (or have reasonable expectation) will commit murder or some other crime. Not that selling a gun to anyone is an immoral act. The fact that you distorted the argument here shows you are being intellectually dishonest. There is no need to travel down that path.

“BTW you didn’t answer my handedness analogy I posted above”

As far as I am aware, I did.

Sylvain,

Another suggestion when you debate people. Don’t toss in lots of peripheral or even random information into an argument that is not relevant to what the debate is about. Show you understand the central argument in the debate and focus on that. When you toss anything you can think of into argument, in the hope that either something will stick, or that you can sideline the central argument, you present yourself as desperate. The side lines might be interesting, and perhaps worthy of comment, but they don’t get you any closer to you making a good point or developing a strong position.

First … Second … Third

Darn! Talk about a non sequitur! What pizzeria is judging and condemning? It is an inanimate object. How does it do these things? Now the owners might but then you seem to be admitting the pizzeria and the owners are inseparable. Which of course implies forcing the catering of pizzas from the pizzeria is in fact forcing the money owners to do the catering which in turn is forcing them to participate in something they have said they find morally repugnant which has nothing to do with making money. Nice of you to own up to that.

In any case, they have NOT refused service to anyone so where is this moronic idea coming from? Something you made up?

Why do you fear letting the courts to decide if someone has a legitimate conflict with their beliefs? What are you afraid of? That’s what RFRA is all about you know.

You have not made a single point toward showing the state has any compelling interest in forcing anyone to cater or participate in a same sex marriage. And THAT is absolutely necessary in the second test set down by EXISTING RFRA statutes including the federal version. So why is it you and the other lefty dolts are screeching some 22 years later as if it was some new thing?

It’s not unsurprising though that you babble and attempt to change the subject. You always do when you have no case which so far is every time you post here.

I’ve linked to the differences between the federal and Indiana statutes. Show how and why those differences are so troublesome. Until then, while it may be true that opinions are like anuses, there really isn’t any reason why we should be forced to watch you use yours.

But then the places you parrot can’t explain the moronic outrage at all which is leaving you stuck in left field. You really have nothing pertinent to say except irrelevant drivel. I further note the amount of drivel in words is increasing just as it has in all of your previous losing positions. What are you trying to hide?

Here is the argument again in summary. (Others are welcome to improve on this.)

Should the state compel an individual to act against their religious convictions?

Reasonable lines of argument:
What are the limits of state power? When is state power reasonable and when is it not?

What can be considered a reasonable definition or test for a ‘religious conviction’ ?

When is discrimination reasonable and when it is not?

Here are various stupid arguments that should be immediately dismissed:

Discrimination is bad and should never be permitted by law. Therefore outlaw female only gyms, male/female toilet facilities, affirmative action, and so on.

Religious people – at least Christians – may not judge others, hence may not express moral convictions. Only God can do this. Therefore the religious may engage in immoral acts or acts contrary to their religious doctrines at any time as they have no capacity to judge their behaviour or the behaviour of ours. All this will be sorted out by God, later.

Christianity is what people outside the religion say it is, and is or should not be determined by the Church Fathers informed by the Scriptures and other Christian documents, et al. Since exegesis has been performed in the past, it can or should be performed again in the future to make religion compatible with sexual preference choices, etc.

Dav,

I’m not afraid of letting the court decide since I already stated in original RFRA tread that the court would invalidate the law or at least the part that granted the license to discriminate.

“What pizzeria is judging and condemning?”

The pizzeria owner stated that they would use a law, that supposedly does not permit discrimination, to discriminate upon a gay couple that would want to feed is guest for whatever the reason is. Actually the unintended consequences of the Hobby Lobby case is that now the owner is personally liable for its company. I.E. In this case the court would judge that the refusal of service is discrimination. If the judge issued a monetary compensation to the couple which the business could not cover, the plaintive would now be able to seize the owners asset like is house to cover the cost. This was not possible before the Hobby Lobby ruling.

The owner of the pizzeria doesn’t have to do anything that he is not already doing, i.e. making pizza. What happened to the pizza once it is made and paid for is of no concern for the owner.

See here for what happened when refusing to bake a cake for the KKK:

http://tribuneherald.net/2013/08/23/kkk-wins-lawsuit-against-bakery-for-discrimination/

BTW I had stated that in such cases they would have to bake the cake before Briggs blog was attacked.

The problem you have with your argument is in the word participate. The owner that bake a pizza, cake, makes sandwiches, or the florist DO NOT participate to the event. It could be different if the catering occurs on location, but even then it is more the employee as an individual that could claim religious freedom to not be in attendance during the event. The company always has the possibility to higher another caterer to attend the event.

I also stated that a owner could refuse an order that is not in is catalog or menu. Like a phallic shaped caked.

“You have not made a single point toward showing the state has any compelling interest…”

The interest is the protection of individual liberty. Freedom is a matter of individual, not group. This is something that many people fail to understand. The freedom to discriminate comes after the freedom of not being discriminated upon. Just like the freedom to kill someone comes after the freedom of not being killed.

I think you misunderstood your link the link to the Indystar that you provided and which agree with most people decrying the law has allowing discrimination heres are the troubling lines:

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

sec 7… “(3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.”

“sec 9… regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”

These 2 section offers the possibility of a sue between 2 citizen, i.e. the owner of a company discriminate against a gay couple. The gay couple sue the company for discrimination. The owner of the company use the RFRA to protect himself from being sued.

This the part are referring to:

Sec 9…”A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding”

The state could join in the lawsuit and it could even sides with the company that is using the religious defense.

sec 10…”(b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.”

This means that someone suing for discrimination could, if the judge agreed with the person that discriminated him/her, have to compensate the person or company that discriminated against him.

Sylvain,

Again, you fail to understand the issue under debate. Until you understand what the issues are you cannot participate in the discussion.

“The pizzeria owner stated that they would use a law, that supposedly does not permit discrimination, to discriminate upon a gay couple that would want to feed is guest for whatever the reason is. ”

This issue is over discrimination and this point uncontested. The issue is when one form of discrimination conflicts with another, which has superior rights, if any?

The problem with your other claims is that you are merely redefining words to mean what they don’t actually mean in common usage.

Will,

You write: “This is plainly and absurdly wrong…”

???I’m not religious but spiritual. I believe in God not in Religion. The only person that can judge me is a judge, or maybe a cop if I commit a legal infraction.

People can judge me all they want but they have no power over me. If I’m wronged by someone I will used the court to defend myself, like I did when an sued an employer for unlawful termination. We settled for $8.5K in 2007. I could have gotten if I had wished to press the situation further. I only regret settling before I go to testify. I also won several cases against government entities. And last month I help my parents win against their life insurance. They received $20k, while they were certain they got nothing. I guess I’m not so bad at arguing.

Yes, Priest or other religious authorities can make judgment which old no grounds against God except maybe denying themselves the Kingdom of Heaven. Not sure that God appreciate that human judge other at least as for their own morality.

God condemn adultery even more than homosexuality:

“Deuteronomy 22:22 ESV /

“If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.””

“1 Corinthians 6:18 ESV /

Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.”

“Matthew 19:9 ESV /

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.””

How come religious freedom is never used in such cases?

“Hebrews 13:4 ESV / 188

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.”

As you can see here God is the Judge not the priest or the pope or the rabbi.

“John 8:4-11 ESV / 85

They said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. …”

Did Jesus judged or condemn this woman?

How does baking a cake or pizza or arrange flower facilitate the act of homosexuality. Baking in your restaurant is not the same as giving a loaded gun to someone you know has the intention to kill. BTW, lawyers have tried make gun seller and gun maker responsible for the murder committed by the buyer. It never worked.

The choice is yours not to sell but this person could sue you for discrimination.

About the left handedness I can’t seem to find your answer.

Will,

“The issue is when one form of discrimination conflicts with another, which has superior rights, if any?”

Who has superior right the Individual that is discriminated, not the one that denies offer of service they usually do.

This is from a link provided by DAV, and said by supporter of the Indiana RFRA

“He also said that in discrimination cases, “the religious side always loses.””

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/31/indianas-rfra-similar-federal-rfra/70729888/

It because the religious side always loses that they are trying to find a legal way around it.

Sylvain,

I’ve already rebutted your arguments in relation to your to idiosyncratic interpretation of Christian doctrine. Repeating the same claim doesn’t get you any further. At this point you may either address my argument or ignore it. If you choose to continue to ignore it, then by default you concede the argument. (Your acknowledgment of the concession does not matter.)

“How does baking a cake or pizza or arrange flower facilitate the act of homosexuality”

By participation in a ceremony and ritual whose purpose is intended to facilitate sexual activity.

” Baking in your restaurant is not the same as giving a loaded gun to someone you know has the intention to kill. ”

Sorry mo, it is exactly identical. The Church views both murder and homosexual acts as mortal sins. There is no ambiguity here. Scripture is clear on this point. The homosexual act is described as an ‘abomination’.

Since I have already explained to you why you are confused over the gun analogy, and you continue to insist to misrepresent, I can only assume now you are intentionally being intellectually dishonest. A person who sells a gun to another person without knowledge that a crime will be committed cannot be considered a party to the crime if the gun was lawfully sold. If the person who sells the gun was aware that its use was for the purposes of a criminal act, the situation is exactly the opposite.

Sylvain,

“It because the religious side always loses that they are trying to find a legal way around it.”

Yes exactly correct. But that is an observation, not an argument.

What is your question relating to left handedness?

What I find to be the most similar to gay people is handedness.

No one denies that left handed people are born that way. It has nothing to do with how they are raised or with genetics.

Like for homosexual and heterosexual twins you have left and right handed twins. Just like you have bisexual people and you have ambidextrous people.

There are no biological explanation for either gays or lefties and in both cases there are no explanation why would anyone choose the hardship of the difference over the easiest choice of doing things like everyone else.

Can you provide any valid argument as to why left handed people would be born that way and gays wouldn’t?

Sylvain,

You’re making a lot of assumptions based on almost no evidence whatsoever. Very little is understood about left handedness. The best large scale studies I’ve looked at haven’t found a correlation between handedness and sexual orientation, so the claim is possibly more to do with poor study design and urban myth than reality. That is to say, large scale studies: > 200,000 sample size show no relationship. Some small scale studies: < 1000 sample size, do.

I'm also inclined to be skeptical of such studies as given the given the complexity of human sexuality, simple connections with left handedness sounds dubious to me. Almost cartoonish. Although there may be a relationship with increased risk factors associated with psychopathology. However, I have not looked closely at those studies so am not knowledgeable enough to comment.

Clearly though, the evidence is overwhelming that sexual preference can and is a choice for most or at least some of us. That doesn't preclude that many if not most people would consider their orientation fixed. But for the sake of the argument, let's assume that sexual orientation is primarily determined biologically. So what? Some people are born short and aren't going to ever be pro basketball players. Some people are unfortunately born with ambiguous genitalia and it is not clear if they are male or female. What is your point? That your physical characteristics rob you of moral agency? Or something else?

Oups, you misunderstood me. I didn’t say that handedness correlates with homosexuality.

My point is that we don’t know what causes handedness just like we don’t know what causes homosexuality.

There are left handed people, there are right handed people and there are ambidextrous people. Just like there are homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual.

In the medieval period left handed people seems to have been seen as a threat. This opinion has just recently evolved since for more than half of the last century left handed people were force to write with there right hand by the teachers, even more if they were religious. Meanwhile homosexuality didn’t receive much consideration until the end of the 19th century when they were branded abnormal by psychiatry.

A very apropos comic strip
http://www.mamieyoung.com/dailydawdle/being%20left%20handed.jpg

Why is that that left handed people are considered as being born that way, while homosexuality is a choice?

Searching google for handedness and homosexuality I only found article related to more left handed being gay than comparing the origin of both but all I can find is that they try to link the two together which I don’t buy in.

Left handedness is not viewed as a choice because one hand has better motor skill than the other irrespective of training. This is probably due to left/right hemispheric specialization in the brain. Homosexuality is seen as being more of a choice because it *is* more of a choice, at least for some or most of us. For example, homosexual behaviour increases in environments lacking female availability. (Prisons.) Bisexuals are attracted to varying degrees to both sexes so choice is a greater factor for them. Based on personal observations alone, a survey of my female friends resulted in around half expressing some interest or curiosity in same-sex experiences. (Although this does not mean they would act these desires out.) The other half being strongly negative towards such suggestions. I only know of one male in my circle of friends, or at least friends of friends, who identifies as homosexual. During a social event I painted a particular hypothetical heterosexual scenario and queried if he had any interest in such an experience. He indicated strong interest to me. Of course, anecdotes aren’t science and my circle of friends and associates aren’t likely representative, but there is nothing in my own informal investigations that seem inconsistent with the scientific literature on this topic.

Will Nitschke,

The issue is when one form of discrimination conflicts with another, which has superior rights, if any?

I’m not sure this question was answered or not, regardless I’ll give you my take. The way that I understand such questions are actually framed in the courts is which party would be least injured having been ruled against. I think it’s easiest to approach it first from a clear cut example. So, suppose a small town with one and only one urgent care medical center, and the next nearest hospital is, oh, an hour’s drive away. Pretty clearly, any party denied medical services for any reason would be the most injured by refusal of service, especially if they arrived already very physically injured.

The dilemma case is the pizzeria in a large city where there are many other businesses providing a similar service. A common argument is that the numerous alternatives, the relatively non-essential nature and frangibility of the product should allow individual owners greater leeway to deny service on the basis of their own individual preferences of whom they wish to serve. Or in short form, “they” can just go somewhere else, what’s the big deal?

The problem with that argument is that in the case of a small, stigmatized minority, there are often very few other places for members of that class to go. No, pizzas aren’t essential so long as the grocer’s doors are open or one has a really good garden, but they are tasty and fun to eat. Even though we haven’t exactly been brilliant about it from the get-go, the ideal of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness was a founding principle of sorts. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 formalized it for public service providers, most notably ending racial segregation. Much drama ensued, a few Constitutional amendments were required to make it enforceable, and we’ve mostly gotten used to the idea that one can’t get kicked out of a pizza parlor for having purple skin.

The Act said nothing about sexual orientation or gender identity, though. So I look at this as Round 2. If history is any guide, it won’t be a big issue 50 years from now. In a more perfect present, a photographer really ought to be able to politely say, “I’m sorry, I’m just not comfortable with the idea of doing your wedding for personal reasons — I’d be happy to recommend you to another excellent studio if that’s acceptable to you”. Whereupon the disappointed but pragmatic couple would seek the alternate vendor with the understanding that a willing and enthusiastic artist is far more likely to do the better job.

Obviously we’re not there yet as there seem to be an endless supply of badly behaving service-seekers and/or service-providers threatening lawsuits. Ugly, but sometimes it’s the principle of the thing which matters most in the middle of this kind of culturally driven legal change.

Spell-check fail: frangibility s/b fungibility

I’m not afraid of letting the court decide since I already stated in original RFRA tread that the court would invalidate the law or at least the part that granted the license to discriminate.

Which only shows your total misunderstanding. There is no license to discriminate. Just like the federal RFRA, it let’s the court decide . Show where this license is granted (i.e., the specific language) the changes from the federal where highlighted in yellow for you.

Actually the unintended consequences of the Hobby Lobby case is that now the owner is personally liable for its company.

Again you demonstrate ignorance of the laws here. The owners of an establishment have always been personally liable. That’s what incorporation is meant to curtail and even then, the officers of the company still are.

See here for what happened when refusing to bake a cake for the KKK

Look at the comments at that link saying the article was an elaborate joke. They weren’t contradicted. Can you find any mention of this that is not linked back to the TribHerald?

Your opinion of how the courts might find in a hypothetical case (like the pizza one) is irrelevant.

The specific challenges to you were:

1) I’ve linked to the differences between the federal and Indiana statutes. Show how and why those differences are so troublesome.

2) You have not made a single point toward showing the state has any compelling interest in forcing anyone to cater or participate in a same sex marriage or any other celebration. Do so.

The interest is the protection of individual liberty.

Individual liberty? Show how that is. Are you claiming the cake bakers and pizza makers are somehow PREVENTING a same sex marriage. Are you for real?

I think you misunderstood your link the link to the Indystar that you provided and which agree with most people decrying the law has allowing discrimination heres are the troubling lines:

No, idiot, I don’t care one iota about the opinions expressed there. It was the only place with the relevant sections highlighted.

Your supposed response to challenge (1):

These 2 section [7 & 9, ed.] offers the possibility of a sue between 2 citizen, i.e. the owner of a company discriminate against a gay couple. The gay couple sue the company for discrimination. The owner of the company use the RFRA to protect himself from being sued.
…
The state could join in the lawsuit and it could even sides with the company that is using the religious defense

You don’t say? What is so bothersome about that?

sec 10…”(b) Relief against the governmental entity may include

This means that someone suing for discrimination could, if the judge agreed with the person that discriminated him/her, have to compensate the person or company that discriminated against him

So now a person or company can be a “governmental entity”? I know you’re English-challenged but maybe it goes deeper than that.

If any of this was supposed to answer the first challenge be aware that it doesn’t. . All you did was wave your hands and paraphrase the statute. Don’t you understand the questions posed to you?

Try to focus and, in particular, stop quoting passages from the bible or the law which do absolutely nothing in answering the challenges.

Why are those parts bothersome?

Will,

We don’t know what causes either of those trait of character. Some scientist believe that all we are comes from our genes. I do not share there views. Genes affect our physical, appearance, the quality of our immune system, and few other things but it does in no way determine who we are.Our character trait comes from somewhere else than our genes.

“Homosexuality is seen as being more of a choice because it *is* more of a choice, at least for some or most of us.”

I have never loved any woman by choice. I would even have a hard explaining why one woman interested me while another woman sitting next to her did not.

The choice is whether a person should act or not act upon their desire. This is where it becomes a matter of personal freedom and arise the possibility of discrimination.

Not everyone shares the same religious belief. Even among Christians there are a multitude of different beliefs, all risen from schism in the way to interpret the text.

So how do you determine who is wronged when religious freedom is faced with personal freedom?

The answer is clear in the case of a bakery baking a cake that is on its catalog or menu. Since baking a cake can in no way be construed has participating or facilitating a sinful act. Once the cake is sold it does not matter in anyway what the new owner of the cake will do with it. The denial of service is done specifically to harmed the buyer and make him feel bad about who he is. The same baker as no difficulty selling cake to other sinners like adulterer who participate in multiple wedding. This selective process of what part of his beliefs an owner choose to apply and has whom deserve and not deserve to be served is what make this case bigotry.

Brandon,

I agree with your reasoning.

The case of the photographer is different because he has to be on site. This is why a photographer can be offered some leeway in refusing services.

There was the case of Elane’s photography in New Mexico where the owner lost because she wrongfully framed the issue around the right of her business instead of her individual rights. The individual can claim religious freedom to not photograph homosexual kissing, but the business which might include employee that would be okay to provide the services cannot refuse.

Dav,

How many times have you been right about a court decision. As it says in the link “the religious side always loses.”

Why do you think it is so?

Because you simply have no idea what freedom and liberty really works inside the courtroom. You only see your personal right as if no one else’s exist.

I’m not surprised that you don’t understand or choose to not understand what is troublesome about the law. You also don’t understand why it is unconstitutional.

They are bothersome because they give a license to discriminate and open RFRA to pursuit between individual.

A gay sues based on anti-discrimination law. The owner uses this law to defend against the suit (and he could even receive help from the state). A red states judge that got his degree in a cereal box render a judgment in favor of the bakery and fined the gay couple. Of course, this would reach SCOTUS which would/will invalidate the law.

Sylvain,

1) You have been asked to point to the specific language in the Indiana statute that is giving you problems and explain why it does so. You have apparently refused to do so. Instead we get more irrelevant babble.

Why?

There certainly isn’t anything in it that gives a license to discriminate so of course you sidestep the issue. If there were then you would be gleefully pointing toward it. Not so strangely, you babble about anything but the actual language of the statute.

You can’t point to any place where it would be unconstitutional as all it does is explicitly state that a person or persons can seek injunctive relief or restraint from a court. A business that is effectively a sole proprietorship may also. Why is that unconstitutional? You have shown your vast ignorance in US law so your opinion on its constitutionality is just a pile of crap.

There is NO language in that statute that targets any group despite your moronic insistence that it does. Well, you were given the opportunity yet you have declined to flag any. Given your previously demonstrated caliber in logical thought your failure is not surprising.

2) You haven’t given any compelling reason for the state to force anyone to participate in any celebration. Again, we both know why.

—

I’m more than a bit tired of your increasingly idiotic evasive responses to specific questions. You know you don’t have a leg to stand on so are using the same tactics employed by Appel and Gates: hand waving, irrelevant smoke screen and stubborn insistence on repeating claims without providing any supporting evidence. Moronic and pathetic and just when I thought your credulity couldn’t sink any lower.

Dav,

I’ve pointed to you with excerpts what language is problematic and why. But you refuse to see the elephant in the room.

This law is a license to discriminate, and if someone refuses to do business with a specific group of people claiming false religious belief is discrimination and bigotry.

The only way a person could claim to be participating in a celebration is if they were in the room where the celebration takes place.

You might not agree with this but the government has the obligation to make sure that rule of capitalism are respected. And one rule of capitalism is the right to acquire property. A place of business must recognize the value of money as long as that money is supported by the government. In the US you have to recognize the value of the US dollar.

I’m not sure if you will be able to access the same page 189 as me but this books explains the right to acquire.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=wxnPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=right+to+acquire+legislation+-house&source=bl&ots=p1hUuOJQay&sig=xnx28_p1ytEB3v84Ba7Mxe5F5Ek&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=xvYiVaDOHIewyAS4woG4Bw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=right%20to%20acquire%20legislation%20-house&f=false

Sylvain,

“Some scientist believe that all we are comes from our gene”

No scientist believes that. All scientists accept nature and nurture play a role. Or if you prefer, let’s say 97% do. But leaving that aside, most of your argument falls apart because of your insistence that you have the ability to reinterpret religious texts to mean what you want them to mean. You have no authority to do this which I’ve explained to you multiple times, and on top of that, your re-interpretation is patently childish and illogical anyway.

The only part of your argument I’m sympathetic to is the hypocrisy argument. Why does the baker refuse the gay couple but not (you are assuming) the couple who are re-marrying? Although there is also a major problem with this line of argument. It should be clear that the Church does not view all sins as equal in seriousness. Clearly, murder is viewed as a worse sin than, say, lying. In the view of the Church a homosexual act is an “abomination” (most serious of sins) whereas adultery is generally described as merely “immoral”. I expect a religious person would argue that there is a line their sense of morality will not let them cross.

Of course, there is a much bigger picture here that you are completely missing.

Sylvain,

Here’s exactly what you said: https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/15654/#comment-139136
I’ve italicized the legal text.

sec 7…(3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

sec 9… regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.sec 7… (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

sec 9… regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.

These 2 section offers the possibility of a sue between 2 citizen, i.e. the owner of a company discriminate against a gay couple. The gay couple sue the company for discrimination. The owner of the company use the RFRA to protect himself from being sued.

I’ve pointed to you with excerpts what language is problematic and why.

You have done no such thing. The part in bold is merely a summary. Are you really that dumb?

Sec 9…A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding

The state could join in the lawsuit and it could even sides with the company that is using the religious defense.

Again, yes the bold is merely paraphrasing the statute . Only an idiot would think this paraphrasing constitutes a explanation of how and why it is bad.

sec 10…(b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: …[I’m not going to repeat all of quotes of section 10]

This means that someone suing for discrimination could, if the judge agreed with the person that discriminated him/her, have to compensate the person or company that discriminated against him.

Totally irrelevant to the current topic and, as I’ve pointed out, your summary is utter nonsense. It assumes it would apply to a person or company when it clearly states: governmental entity

This law is a license to discriminate

Yet you can’t show the language which grants this license. This is repetition of of a claim without substantiation. It’s a troll method. Pathetic.

The rest of APRIL 6, 2015 AT 5:23 PM is completely pointless rambling which does not answer either challenge in APRIL 6, 2015 AT 7:29 AM

Sylvain, you either really have no idea what you are arguing or are a liar — maybe both. But please do continue to make an ass of yourself. It’s fun to watch you squirm and even more fun to know you think the squirming effective. I know it’s April. I guess you feel it necessary to act the fool.

Just one more thing I’ve been letting slide:

These 2 section offers the possibility of a sue between 2 citizen, i.e. the owner of a company discriminate against a gay couple. The gay couple sue the company for discrimination. The owner of the company use the RFRA to protect himself from being sued.

No it doesn’t protect against being sued. Quite the opposite. Sec. 9 clearly states: A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter mayassert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding

Which means the whole thing goes to court, mediation, or administrative hearing. Being sued means that as well. Saying this statute is protection against being sued is categorically false. In fact, the person who feels their religious exercise is being burdened may initiate the proceedings. Note the use of the word claim.

Considering we are talking about one sentence here ya gotta wonder how that could have been misinterpreted. Poor reading skills would be the charitable supposition. Less charitable: it’s a calculated lie and those who disseminate it are liars.

DAV,

You know you don’t have a leg to stand on so are using the same tactics employed by Appel and Gates …

Please kindly do not use me as ammunition against someone else’s position. I speak for no one but myself. Thank you.

Sylvain,

The individual can claim religious freedom to not photograph homosexual kissing, but the business which might include employee that would be okay to provide the services cannot refuse.

I was not aware of that detail in this particular case. The parallel to the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS suit is more clear to me now, thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Briggs,

Exactly so. Leave people to their own devices.

How does that principle mesh with your historical stance against same sex matrimony?

If the Christian photographer doesn’t want to film, say, a gay pr0n segment, he should be left alone. A same sex attracted person should not have to make cakes with anti-same-sex messages, nor should a black-run pizzeria have to cater a KKK rally. And so forth.

While I broadly agree with you on those hypotheticals, the real-life scenarios being discussed on this thread aren’t nearly as clear cut.

Will,

What follows will be hard for you to read and to absorb. I don’t even speculate that you will understand it, mostly you will close yourself in your familiar belief.

“No scientist believes that.”

You have surely missed many post on this blog. Briggs has posted several studies pointing in that direction. Like this one:

https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/7254/

And if it is less than 100% my “some scientist” still hold thru.

“…most of your argument falls apart because of your insistence that you have the ability to reinterpret religious texts to mean what you want them to mean.”

If you are Catholic you should take the interpretation that the Pope gives to the Bible, but this changes from pope to pope. If you are a Protestant, a Calvinist, a Mennonite,or any other of the hundreds if not thousands of different denomination that exist who all interpret the Bible differently.

Some Priest gladly interpret the Bible in the way that it authorize gay marriage and will accept to proceed with Gay ceremonies. Everyone has as much authority than the Pope or the Priest to interpret the Bible the way they want. And it is what everyone do, and have been doing since the coming of Christ, mainly because the apostle didn’t understood shit about what Jesus told them and steered people the wrong way.

The interpretation the any church develop is to gain control over its population. When Constantine made Christianism of the Roman Empire religion, he did it because every year the number of convert to Christianity got ever higher and that persecution didn’t work. If you can’t beat them join them. So has Pontifex Maximus he became the head of the church and inserted quantities of symbol coming fro Mithra. Mithra is the one born on december 25th, not Christ. He is also the one that inserted Idolatry into Catholicism having sculpture of himself portraying has a god. Must Catholic are shielded from these truth so I would be surprised that you ever heard of any of this.

I bet you don’t even know that the first muslim were in large part the original Christian who did not recognized themselves in how the Church in the West was interpreting the rite incorporating their ancient pagan religion.

“and on top of that, your re-interpretation is patently childish and illogical anyway.”

That’s comprehensible coming from someone who never thought about spiritual matters by himself, or outside of the box of the Catholic or Church. Taking things by faith instead of going through what the words might really means.

There is a lot of hypocrisy in organized religion which is why I don’t consider myself Catholic anymore. I have stopped giving power to other over my spirituality when I was about 12 years old. Like everyone is equal but the pope is at the top a hierarchy. God is the judge but then priest and pope play god in judging people which is an absurdity by itself.

I might think that someone is a bigot but I will not treat him differently. If he need help I am there for the people who are asking.

“In the view of the Church a homosexual act is an “abomination””

This is actually a very recent interpretation/ translation of the bible. One problem for the Jews from the Exodus till the destruction of the temple, was the low number of their population. That’s because when they invaded the land of Canaan ,after the Exodus, they massacred the local population instead of integrating them into their faith. Very similar to what they are doing now. In that light women who were not having enough babies to grow the population to compete with the Assyrian, for example, was a problem.

In the New Testament homosexuality is a very minor sin. The Old Testament has nothing to do with Christ. This is the belief he departed of and yet they kept it in Bible.

Dav,

I guess you can continue to lose your causes in court.

I’m against the death penalty and false pretense.

The only way to partake in a sinful act is to do the sinful act. All you have to do is to not have homosexual sex. Stating religious belief to justified discrimination is a much worst sin than to bake a cake.

“James 4:12

There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

Romans 13:8-10

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Hebrews 13:1-25

Let brotherly love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body. Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”

John 8:7-11

And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Matthew 5:17-19

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

1 John 4:8

Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

1 John 2:9
Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness.

Matthew 5:44
But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,”

1 John 4:20

If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen

Sylvain,

It may surprise you to learn I have never lost a court case.

But you must mean losing some hypothetical case involving RFRA. If all RFRA cases are doomed to failure (for those whose right to religious exercise have been burdened, that is) then what the hell is your problem with it? Here you are screeching like a chimpanzee over something that is (by your own words) of no consequence . You don’t think this even the slightest bit idiotic?

Briggs,

If you read what I wrote above you will see it is because of the message that he lost. Though he should have at least made bible theme without any writing on it.

A usual wedding cake does not have any writing on it.

The owner did offer to bake a cake without any message on it:

“She agreed to make the dessert in the shape of a book but declined to include the hateful content.”

So there really wasn’t any discrimination

Dav,

RFRA can be useful when the government burden the citizen.

Which is not the case with the Indianna law.

Maybe we should do a little bet on the coming decision by SCOTUS in Burwell vs King, which is about the language in Obamacare.

Briggs she offered to bake the cake in the form of book. The client refused. She refused the message wich is not in her catalog.

A wedding cake as no message on it. As I said above, you cannot refuse to bake the cake but you can refuse to put the writings on it. That is why there was no discrimination. She would have made a cake in her catalog and the customer could have added the message himself.

In the end she didn’t refuse the customer it is the customer that refused her.

This is what I meant by, you can continue to lose your cause in court.

Me: If all RFRA cases are doomed to failure (for those whose right to religious exercise have been burdened, that is) then what the hell is your problem with it?

Sylvain’s response: RFRA can be useful when the government burden the citizen. Which is not the case with the [ Indiana ] law.

Let’s see: an RFRA can be useful at times but not the one in Indiana. So you are saying the Indiana RFRA doesn’t go far enough and that’s why you are so against it? Why didn’t you just say that in the beginning instead of the voluminous and not-to-the-point babble? You just like seeing your name in print? You get a kick out of being disruptive?

Maybe we should do a little bet on the coming decision by SCOTUS in Burwell vs King, which is about the language in Obamacare.

Change the subject? It’s certainly what you are best at. Who knows? Maybe it will bury your ineffective — even silly (see here
and here for the latest silliness)
— replies which aren’t TOO far off topic. But, no thanks, I think you’ve been more than disruptive enough.

Dav,

The Indiana law is doomed to fail because it grants company and individual a license to discriminate. The license to discriminate is in the language posted above in Sec. 9-10. That you don’t understand that is out of my power.

Other RFRA are not doom to fail because the language is done to prevent discrimination, not to cause it, and they are limited to relation between the government and citizen. The court expanded that right to closely held corporation in the Hobby Lobby case.

In Burwell vs King the plaintive will lose its case by a score of a score of anywhere between 9-0 to 6-3. Scalia and Thomas will probably side with the plaintive. Napolitano is an unknown. Kennedy and Roberts will side with King.

The mandate is a new tax and the plaintive would like to be exempted of paying the tax because of a badly written article.

Other RFRA are not doom to fail because the language is done to prevent discrimination, not to cause it, and The Indiana law is doomed to fail because it grants company and individual a license to discriminate. The license to discriminate is in the language posted above in Sec. 9-10. That you don’t understand that is out of my power.

Of course it’s beyond your power to show what isn’t present, Sylvain. There is no language in sec 9 that includes the words “discriminate” or “discrimination” and merely refers to the right to freely exercise one’s religion and how that person might seek relief. In fact, section 9 is one sentence long. Face it, at best you aren’t nearly facile with English as you think. I suggest you get Google to translate that for you. At worst, well …

Section 10 differs not one bit from the federal RFRA. so if there is any language in section 10 granting a license to discriminate it’s in the federal version as well. Even a moron would know this. Well, most moron’s anyway.

But since you can’t really show otherwise you resort to stupid troll tricks like changing the subject.. No wonder you like Gates’s reasoning. Neither of you can make a cogent argument and lose by default so you both resort to inserting reams of irrelevancy.

I must say, though, I’ve never seen anyone punk themselves as you have. You not only can’t make a good argument; you can’t even make a consistent one and continually contradict yourself. You’re so cute when you screw yourself like that. But don’t let that stop you from making a bigger fool of yourself with a feel-good post . I won’t be listening.

“I’m moving to Canada where I’ll be free to practice my religion.”

LOL. Something tells me the sentiment of that sentence will be entirely missed.

Briggs,

Some believe the State is the Ultimate in all, a god lacking only divinity.

Some people disagree, and call such statements “weasel-worded strawmen”. Others might point out the ironic “lack” of self-awareness on display when God-fearing folk say such things. I can’t name any names since I’m probably just speculating here for rhetorical effect. Or possibly just being far too lazy to go dig up a pleasingly self-confirming anecdote.

We’ll never know unless there really is an afterlife AND that information is freely shared with those worthy of achieving some sufficiently exalted state therein. Until then, my deniability remains plausible to other Earthbound mere mortals. Or at least I’m firmly convinced it is, which is what matters most. This makes me very happy indeed, thus I shan’t give it another iota of thought whilst I continue to bumble along merrily whistling a satisfied little tune. Cheers and God speed.

DAV,

No wonder you like Gates’s reasoning.

I repeat my previous request: please leave me out of your arguments with others. I do not speak for them. Further request: if you’ve got a bone to pick with me, please take it up with me directly and I’ll be happy to respond — such is a defining feature of people who are principled and have a spine to support them. Thanks.

Briggs,

The case of a photographer is more complicated.

First there is the case of Elane’s photography

You can read all about the case here:

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ElanePhotoCertPetition.pdf

Here is why they lost:

1) They centered the case on the company right and policy, not on the individual who has to take the photography.
2) They centered around the the book that they produce, not on the individual who has to capture something something that he find distasteful.
3) They centered on religion

The decision would have been different if the lawyers representing Elane’s photography had frame the question around the photographer instead of the company products.

They don’t say how many photographer are working for this employer, my guess would be one. To take the photography the photographer has to witness two person of the same sex kissing and participate at a wedding that goes against the individual, not the company, religious belief. If Elane’s photography lawyers had frame the issue this way they would have won.

Unlike the baker who doesn’t participate to the event, the product does, a photograph as to be on site to take the photography which make him/her a participant who can invoke religious belief to not take the pictures.

No wonder you like Gates’s reasoning.

I repeat my previous request:
APRIL 6, 2015 AT 12:50 PM Brandon,I agree with your reasoning.

Did I mention inserting irrelevancies and changing the topi?. That I have discussed those very things with you doesn’t mean anything apparently, Such is the defining feature of the unprincipled,

Dav,

I think you could have a case for suing the US school for having let you pass through the mesh with an inadequate level of understanding simple reasoning.

The word discrimination does have to appear to allow it.

Feeling better now, Sylvain?

DAV,

Did I mention inserting irrelevancies and changing the topi?.

Several times. I am irrelevant to your conversation with Sylvain. Part of being principled is being consistent. So also is granting polite requests, as in; please refrain from using me as ammunition against someone else’s position.

Thank you.

I am irrelevant to your conversation with Sylvain.

And others as well. But you are indeed relevant here or rather your actions are. Sylvain is mimicking your behavior, If you don’t want to be held up as an example troll don’t act like one.

Sylvain persists with the argument that if I sell a gun to a person who is intent on committing murder and I’m aware of this, there is nothing wrong morally, so long as I don’t witness the actual murder.

Or to phrase this another way, you may be compelled to participate in a wedding ceremony, which is a ritual which establishes a sexual union, e.g., take photographs, bake cakes, etc. Doing otherwise would be discriminatory and discrimination is always wrong. But if you witness the actual sexual act, then discrimination is now permitted, and you may not be compelled. And now discrimination is perfectly fine. Apparently the viewing of the sexual act defines when discrimination is permitted, except when it doesn’t.

As Sylvain tries to flesh out his/her arguments, the arguments become increasingly incoherent.

DAV,

Sylvain is mimicking your behavior, If you don’t want to be held up as an example troll don’t act like one.

I am not responsible for what Sylvain does, he is. My request to you is on record, and respectfully so: please leave me out of your argument with him. I’m not interested in taking up anything else with you as bargaining chip. An adult to adult request really should suffice. Thanks.

Will,

“Or to phrase this another way…, e.g., take photographs, bake cakes, etc”

Did you even read what I wrote:

APRIL 7, 2015 AT 7:07 PM

“Unlike the baker who doesn’t participate to the event, the product does, a photograph as to be on site to take the photography which make him/her a participant who can invoke religious belief to not take the pictures.”

To participate in a wedding means that you have to be present on the site of the ceremony.

The fact is that there have never been a successful accusation of a gun retailer in the US, unless they sold to someone who was not eligible. Considering the number of murder by gun we could guess that some retailer sold gun to people that they suspected would use it to murder someone.

One has to be fairly asinine to bring the comparison between something that top the criminal law with a ceremony that his legal.

I think that the one who demonstrate a faulty argument is yourself.

Also, If my argument is so faulty how come the court doesn’t rule in your favor?

An adult to adult request really should suffice.

Sure! Let’s revisit this after you grow up.

Sylvain I have read what you wrote, unfortunately. You are still making basic errors of reasoning and logic. You are conflating issues and are confused over others. You have been corrected multiple times but either ignore the corrections because you can’t deal with them or are lacking the ability to understand them. But the points raised are relatively simple.

“To participate in a wedding means that you have to be present on the site of the ceremony.”

Because you make something up, doesn’t make it true. I can participate by having my staff cater to the event, without being physically present. To say black is not red does not make black red. The rest of your argument makes even less sense than this nonsensical statement, if that’s possible.

“The fact is that there have never been a successful accusation of a gun retailer in the US… [blah blah blah]”

Your confusion here was already explained to you. You persist. The argument has nothing to do with whether gun dealers are criminals. Nobody is talking about gun dealers. I have a gun, you tell me you wish to murder someone. I sell you the gun anyway. Is this a *moral* act? You argue it is moral to sell the gun to the intended murderer because you won’t be witnessing the act. This has nothing to do with legality, gun dealerships or any other irrelevancy you dredge up. The question is: Is this a moral act? You say it is, everyone else on the planet would say it isn’t.

“One has to be fairly asinine to bring the comparison between something that top the criminal law with a ceremony that his legal.”

Be careful on name calling when you are now so totally confused, that you are mixing up a discussion with me over morality, by declaring that all moral issues are, apparently, decided by what is lawful. If this new novel claim is so, then you cannot object to the Indiana statute can you? Although at this point in the exchange you are now so totally confused that you are tripping over your own arguments and I doubt very much you understand what you’re arguing any more than anyone else can work out.

“Because you make something up, doesn’t make it true. I can participate by having my staff cater to the event, without being physically present”

The problem you have is that the court does not agree with you. This is why people win discrimination cases.

“I have a gun, you tell me you wish to murder someone. I sell you the gun anyway. Is this a *moral* act?”

When have you ever heard religious people claim that hand gun should not be sold because for the reason that there only purpose is to kill people.

No it’s not moral or even legal to sell a gun if you know that the person buy it specifically to commit a murder, and yes it would make you an accomplice to a crime.

But your example bares no comparison to baking a cake and you cannot claim religious freedom to justify discrimination.

This the judgment from a Colorado judge. It seems he agrees with me.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/06/3035121/colorado-bakery-broke-law/

“Baking Cakes Is Not Religious Conduct

Though Phillips objected to providing the cake on religious grounds, the ALJ pointed out that baking a cake is not actually conduct that is part of his religion. Thus, it does not qualify for exemption from regulation:
Respondents’ refusal to provide a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding is distinctly the type of conduct that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found subject to legitimate regulation. Such discrimination is against the law; it adversely affects the rights of Complainants to be free from discrimination in the marketplace; and the impact upon Respondents is incidental to the state’s legitimate regulation of commercial activity. Respondents therefore have no valid claim that barring them from discriminating against same-sex customers violates their right to free exercise of religion. Conceptually, Respondents’ refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage. However, that argument was struck down long ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. United States.”

You can also read this article that shows how religious belief is subjective:

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-20698-the_cake_wars.html

Sylvain I’ll have to end the discussion here and take you off my list of comments I read. You seem unable to follow an argument or respond coherently. Usually I chalk such things up to missing posts, or a language barrier problem if English isn’t your first language. But whatever the issue is, it goes deeper than that. It may relate to your education level or some other problem. I apologise but I’m looking for people who can provide some sort of challenge that I can also learn from. Good luck anyway and keep trying.

DAV,

Let’s revisit this after you grow up.

Well I see you still know how to hit the slow pitches.

Will,

I’m sad for you that you can’t follow a simple argument. Meanwhile the court agree with me, so maybe you can read the judgment they render, my argument pretty much all find there way in there decision. They probably expresses them better than me.

Yes, english is my second language. My IQ is around 140-150 depending if I take the test in french or english. In exam, at the University I usually beat the score of most english born people which means that I do understand the issue and the history. And yes some teacher mentioned that that I can be wandering but usually agree with me once I they got a chance to analyze my reasoning. I even have teacher asking my opinion when dealing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. So I’m not worried about myself.

An appropriate quote to wrap this thread up:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
– C. S. Lewis

On the difference in morality of the participation of selling to someone while knowing that he would use it to murder someone and to sell a cake for a gay wedding.

The difference:

1) The murder

The sin is the act of murder, which is the 6th commandment. So selling a gun to a buyer that informs of is intent to use the gun to kill someone makes the seller an accomplices of the murder.

2) The wedding

Homosexuality is not even part of the ten commandments while adultery is. Yet adultery which is very common is never mentioned by the religious crowd as a reason for denial of service. Yet, in Leviticus they are both reserved the same treatment:

“Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

“Leviticus 20:10
“If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.””

Putting the hypocrisy of the religious crowd aside. The sin is the sexual act not the wedding. One cannot claim that he participate in a sinful act by baking a cake because the wedding is not a sinful act.

Unlike the gun which is the reason of the death, the cake, flowers, or even the wedding do not cause or facilitate the sexual act.

In the end the person who deny the service is the one committing the worst sin in judging its neighbor.

“Leviticus 19:15
“You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”