The Historian Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 It's a shame that the Catholic education this fellow purportedly received didn't include anything about the Social Reign of Christ the King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Historian Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Of course it doesnt explicitly say that! Thats suicide. And yes it is discrimination because you can deny service to anyone based on religious beliefs....aka discrimination. I understand that as a Catholic, you will naturally refuse to see what this law is meant to do, but please for the love of humanity, civil rights, and just plain decency do no turn a blind eye. Of course it's discrimination. There's nothing wrong with discrimination, it is not immoral. It is only immoral to discriminate against an individual regarding basic necessities such as housing, food, water, and most employment and educational opportunities. No one has a God given right to the services of another individual beyond those that they are owed in justice. Having a specific baker make your cake to celebrate your abominable union is not a right by any stretch of the imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Of course it doesnt explicitly say that! Thats suicide. And yes it is discrimination because you can deny service to anyone based on religious beliefs....aka discrimination. I understand that as a Catholic, you will naturally refuse to see what this law is meant to do, but please for the love of humanity, civil rights, and just plain decency do no turn a blind eye. This is an extreme regression in civil rights and it is disguised as protecting religious freedoms. Politics have a funny way of saying just enough to get done what they need, but not enough to make the faint of heart privy to their intentions. If you ever work with the language of patents and other such things, youd know what Im talking about. So they don't actually say it but it is there? My question is where, where in the law is it hidden away? Do you have an answer about the nurse being forced to help in an abortion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Of course it doesnt explicitly say that! Thats suicide. And yes it is discrimination because you can deny service to anyone based on religious beliefs....aka discrimination. I understand that as a Catholic, you will naturally refuse to see what this law is meant to do, but please for the love of humanity, civil rights, and just plain decency do no turn a blind eye. This is an extreme regression in civil rights and it is disguised as protecting religious freedoms. Politics have a funny way of saying just enough to get done what they need, but not enough to make the faint of heart privy to their intentions. If you ever work with the language of patents and other such things, youd know what Im talking about. When the Christian bakery denied services for the gay wedding they were not denying service simply because those requesting the cake were gay. They were denying the event which celebrated gay marriage. The event is not a person and the person is not the event. You want to take away Catholic's, no sorry, everybody's right to refuse to participate in events? I'm Christian and I would never walk into a gay bakery and force them to provide me a cake for an event that is against their beliefs and values. They shouldn't have to provide me service for that nor should a Christian bakery. Yet according to you it should be made mandatory that they must work against thier will to provide services for a belief(s) and event(s) they do not hold or value!? Seriously CrossCuT, it's equal parts hilarious and sad that you think you're protecting civil rights by introducing totalitarianism! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 So they don't actually say it but it is there? My question is where, where in the law is it hidden away? Do you have an answer about the nurse being forced to help in an abortion? https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101# http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/01/395613897/sorting-fact-from-fiction-from-politics-on-the-indiana-law I believe one of the key lines is "A governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." Which is intentional ambiguous language for the evet of any discrimination accusation. Basically, nothing will happen with this law unless there is an actual discrimination case. If that happens, it will go to a judge to interpret the law and decide if this indeed applies as a substantial burden or not. It doesnt specifically state discrimination (No law would because thats how they work) but the doors are now wide open for it to occur. The law serves as a means to cover tracks for religious bigots who dont want to get in trouble for refusing services to homosexual people. Another fun fact is that sexual orientation isnt even in Indiana's general anti discrimination language for other laws so its technically already "legal". As for your second question about my opinion, I believe I have stated it already. It is my opinion that if you go into any career, service, position or whatever in which you know there are duties you do not want to perform, then you have the choice to NOT go into that position. If you are in that position you should perform the duties you agreed you would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 When the Christian bakery denied services for the gay wedding they were not denying service simply because those requesting the cake were gay. They were denying the event which celebrated gay marriage. The event is not a person and the person is not the event. You want to take away Catholic's, no sorry, everybody's right to refuse to participate in events? I'm Christian and I would never walk into a gay bakery and force them to provide me a cake for an event that is against their beliefs and values. They shouldn't have to provide me service for that nor should a Christian bakery. Yet according to you it should be made mandatory that they must work against thier will to provide services for a belief(s) and event(s) they do not hold or value!? Seriously CrossCuT, it's equal parts hilarious and sad that you think you're protecting civil rights by introducing totalitarianism! No one is forcing you to become a baker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 https://iga.in.gov/static-documents/9/2/b/a/92bab197/SB0101.05.ENRS.pdfHere is the text of the law if anyone feels so inclined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101# http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/01/395613897/sorting-fact-from-fiction-from-politics-on-the-indiana-law I believe one of the key lines is "A governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." Which is intentional ambiguous language for the evet of any discrimination accusation. Basically, nothing will happen with this law unless there is an actual discrimination case. If that happens, it will go to a judge to interpret the law and decide if this indeed applies as a substantial burden or not. It doesnt specifically state discrimination (No law would because thats how they work) but the doors are now wide open for it to occur. The law serves as a means to cover tracks for religious bigots who dont want to get in trouble for refusing services to homosexual people. Another fun fact is that sexual orientation isnt even in Indiana's general anti discrimination language for other laws so its technically already "legal". Thank you for your opinion and interpretation for the law. I do not see it the same way. As for your second question about my opinion, I believe I have stated it already. It is my opinion that if you go into any career, service, position or whatever in which you know there are duties you do not want to perform, then you have the choice to NOT go into that position. If you are in that position you should perform the duties you agreed you would do. What an absolute contradiction, profoundly hypocritical, even sick and vile opinion. One one hand you protest discrimination then on the other you have the opinion that someone else should be forced to take part in the murder (the greatest and most vile act of evil discrimination) of someone else. I'm sorry but that invalidates you protest of the law. I very much dislike hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Thank you for your opinion and interpretation for the law. I do not see it the same way. What an absolute contradiction, profoundly hypocritical, even sick and vile opinion. One one hand you protest discrimination then on the other you have the opinion that someone else should be forced to take part in the murder (the greatest and most vile act of evil discrimination) of someone else. I'm sorry but that invalidates you protest of the law. I very much dislike hypocrisy. Calm down pls. Explain why you think this is hypocritical. I hold all people to the same standards; do the job you chose to do. End. Is this contradictory to anything else I have said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 So if I worked in a print shop, I am a bigot if I refuse to print pornographic pictures. Or if I refuse to print pro-abortion signage. If I worked in upholstery - and technically I sort of do - I would be a bigot if I refused to take a job for a strip club or the adult video store next door. I wonder, if I was the editor for a diocesan newspaper, would I be a bigot if I refused to run advertisements for the local abortuary or Masonic lodge or 'women priest' group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 No one is forcing you to become a baker. Nowhere in the profession of being a baker does it say I must provide services for every event. You're still confusing events with people. I have no problem giving a gay person a birthday cake. I will not though provide them with a cake to celebrate their "marriage". As a baker I am allowed to chose which events my company is associated with and which ones it is not. Major companies exercise this right all the time when events do not go in toe with their core values or mission statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Nowhere in the profession of being a baker does it say I must provide services for every event. You're still confusing events with people. I have no problem giving a gay person a birthday cake. I will not though provide them with a cake to celebrate their "marriage". As a baker I am allowed to chose which events my company is associated with and which ones it is not. Major companies exercise this right all the time when events do not go in toe with their core values or mission statements. Bakers are in the business of selling goods, not a moral compass for others affairs. I dont see your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Calm down pls. Explain why you think this is hypocritical. I hold all people to the same standards; do the job you chose to do. End. Is this contradictory to anything else I have said? Unjust discrimation at it's most basic level is denying someone their basic or fundamental rights. On one hand you protest the law because in your view it commits this offense. Yet on the other hand you do not object to someone being forced to discriminate against a person, that is to deny a baby her most basic and fundamental right to not be murdered. How does being forced to discriminate make it ok to discriminate? It does not. But that is the logical conclusion of the position you've taken. So long as it is a person's job to discriminate they must discriminate. In this case help to deny the most basic right of us all. It is hypocrisy to the extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Unjust discrimation at it's most basic level is denying someone their basic or fundamental rights. On one hand you protest the law because in your view it commits this offense. Yet on the other hand you do not object to someone being forced discriminate against a person, that is to deny a baby her most basic and fundamental right to not be murdered. How does being forced to discriminate make it ok to discriminate? It does not. But that is the logical conclusion of the position you've taken. So long as it is a person's job to discriminate they must discriminate. In this case help to deny the most basic right of us all. It is hypocrisy to the extreme. So youre ok with discrimination to prevent discrimination? But what about refusing goods and services when someones life isnt on the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 So youre ok with discrimination to prevent discrimination? It's ok with you in the case of the nurse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now