johnbrandt wrote:I thought the "tolerant and loving" left and activist groups promised people could still keep their own beliefs?

johnbrandt wrote:
My own son is a prime example...he's gay, big deal, we could care less, we still love him and his amazing partner. However, he and his partner went to get some photos taken, and the woman refused as she said she didn't approve of homosexuality for religious reasons. instead of shrugging and going to one of the hundred other photographers around the town, they went straight to the local TV station and newspapers and got onto social media, and started a campaign against the woman. After hounding from the local TV and paper and some quite nasty and threatening anger on social media on the womans business page, she shut down her business and gave it away. They then went and got the pictures taken somewhere else.
My son is quite proud of this.

Animavore wrote:

johnbrandt wrote:
My own son is a prime example...he's gay, big deal, we could care less, we still love him and his amazing partner. However, he and his partner went to get some photos taken, and the woman refused as she said she didn't approve of homosexuality for religious reasons. instead of shrugging and going to one of the hundred other photographers around the town, they went straight to the local TV station and newspapers and got onto social media, and started a campaign against the woman. After hounding from the local TV and paper and some quite nasty and threatening anger on social media on the womans business page, she shut down her business and gave it away. They then went and got the pictures taken somewhere else.
My son is quite proud of this.

This should be easy enough to understand if you exchage the underlined bit for "Jews" or "Aborigines".

From here you've 3 main choices -

1. See the light.
2. Trip yourself up trying to argue the case of homosexuality is somehow different.
3. Disturbingly try to argue that people should be free to serve or not based on their personal, religious prejudices.

Ball's in your court.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Animavore wrote:

johnbrandt wrote:
My own son is a prime example...he's gay, big deal, we could care less, we still love him and his amazing partner. However, he and his partner went to get some photos taken, and the woman refused as she said she didn't approve of homosexuality for religious reasons. instead of shrugging and going to one of the hundred other photographers around the town, they went straight to the local TV station and newspapers and got onto social media, and started a campaign against the woman. After hounding from the local TV and paper and some quite nasty and threatening anger on social media on the womans business page, she shut down her business and gave it away. They then went and got the pictures taken somewhere else.
My son is quite proud of this.

This should be easy enough to understand if you exchage the underlined bit for "Jews" or "Aborigines".

From here you've 3 main choices -

1. See the light.
2. Trip yourself up trying to argue the case of homosexuality is somehow different.
3. Disturbingly try to argue that people should be free to serve or not based on their personal, religious prejudices.

Ball's in your court.

What’s so disturbing about that?

Tracer Tong wrote:
What’s so disturbing about that?

Tracer Tong wrote:

Animavore wrote:

johnbrandt wrote:
My own son is a prime example...he's gay, big deal, we could care less, we still love him and his amazing partner. However, he and his partner went to get some photos taken, and the woman refused as she said she didn't approve of homosexuality for religious reasons. instead of shrugging and going to one of the hundred other photographers around the town, they went straight to the local TV station and newspapers and got onto social media, and started a campaign against the woman. After hounding from the local TV and paper and some quite nasty and threatening anger on social media on the womans business page, she shut down her business and gave it away. They then went and got the pictures taken somewhere else.
My son is quite proud of this.

This should be easy enough to understand if you exchage the underlined bit for "Jews" or "Aborigines".

From here you've 3 main choices -

1. See the light.
2. Trip yourself up trying to argue the case of homosexuality is somehow different.
3. Disturbingly try to argue that people should be free to serve or not based on their personal, religious prejudices.

Ball's in your court.

What’s so disturbing about that?

Animavore wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Animavore wrote:

johnbrandt wrote:
My own son is a prime example...he's gay, big deal, we could care less, we still love him and his amazing partner. However, he and his partner went to get some photos taken, and the woman refused as she said she didn't approve of homosexuality for religious reasons. instead of shrugging and going to one of the hundred other photographers around the town, they went straight to the local TV station and newspapers and got onto social media, and started a campaign against the woman. After hounding from the local TV and paper and some quite nasty and threatening anger on social media on the womans business page, she shut down her business and gave it away. They then went and got the pictures taken somewhere else.
My son is quite proud of this.

This should be easy enough to understand if you exchage the underlined bit for "Jews" or "Aborigines".

From here you've 3 main choices -

1. See the light.
2. Trip yourself up trying to argue the case of homosexuality is somehow different.
3. Disturbingly try to argue that people should be free to serve or not based on their personal, religious prejudices.

Ball's in your court.

What’s so disturbing about that?

There's a possible slippery slope when the government starts allowing people discriminate based on their own whims towards state-sponsered discrimination. See Germany pre-WW2 for details.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Animavore wrote:

This should be easy enough to understand if you exchage the underlined bit for "Jews" or "Aborigines".

From here you've 3 main choices -

1. See the light.
2. Trip yourself up trying to argue the case of homosexuality is somehow different.
3. Disturbingly try to argue that people should be free to serve or not based on their personal, religious prejudices.

Ball's in your court.

What’s so disturbing about that?

There's a possible slippery slope when the government starts allowing people discriminate based on their own whims towards state-sponsered discrimination. See Germany pre-WW2 for details.

I don't really know what you mean by "discriminate...towards state-sponsored discrimination". It also seems odd to characterise religious convictions as "whims".

Tracer Tong wrote:I don't really know what you mean by "discriminate...towards state-sponsored discrimination". It also seems odd to characterise religious convictions as "whims".

Animavore wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

What’s so disturbing about that?

There's a possible slippery slope when the government starts allowing people discriminate based on their own whims towards state-sponsered discrimination. See Germany pre-WW2 for details.

I don't really know what you mean by "discriminate...towards state-sponsored discrimination". It also seems odd to characterise religious convictions as "whims".

If it seems odd then you may not be aware of 30,000 + sects of Christianity.

Tracer Tong wrote:I don’t really know how this relates to what I said, but in any case this speculation is mistaken.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:I don’t really know how this relates to what I said, but in any case this speculation is mistaken.

What you have implied is that the decision not to accommodate somebody on the pretense that it violates religious convictions is not the result of a whim. Sure, it might not be, but how might it not be simply a whim? You might be stuck arguing that religious convictions are the same as religious doctrine, or you might be stuck arguing that such a decision is not from a whim. If you're not stuck with either of those, you have yet to describe just what it is you're stuck with.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:I don’t really know how this relates to what I said, but in any case this speculation is mistaken.

What you have implied is that the decision not to accommodate somebody on the pretense that it violates religious convictions is not the result of a whim. Sure, it might not be, but how might it not be simply a whim? You might be stuck arguing that religious convictions are the same as religious doctrine, or you might be stuck arguing that such a decision is not from a whim. If you're not stuck with either of those, you have yet to describe just what it is you're stuck with.

I've not implied that, since I've not been talking about people pretending they've religious convictions.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:I don’t really know how this relates to what I said, but in any case this speculation is mistaken.

What you have implied is that the decision not to accommodate somebody on the pretense that it violates religious convictions is not the result of a whim. Sure, it might not be, but how might it not be simply a whim? You might be stuck arguing that religious convictions are the same as religious doctrine, or you might be stuck arguing that such a decision is not from a whim. If you're not stuck with either of those, you have yet to describe just what it is you're stuck with.

I've not implied that, since I've not been talking about people pretending they've religious convictions.

Well, we can let that go, then, can't we? I sure can. You inquired as to why some attitude or argument should be considered disturbing. I think you might be on the right track there, but with you, it's never really clear what track you're on.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Perhaps you'd be better off just challenging a flesh-and-blood human to a chess match. Barring that, you can just go play with yourself.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Animavore wrote:If it seems odd then you may not be aware of 30,000 + sects of Christianity.

I don’t really know how this relates to what I said, but in any case this speculation is mistaken.

aban57 wrote:So when is the divorce planned ?