|
Try and keep it on the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion. This deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups. Which religion, if any, is right is irrelevant and arguments of that nature will be moderated. |
United States41959 Posts
On December 13 2012 02:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:
on a side note, would it be off-topic to discuss the actual ideas behind "separate but equal" and it's actual effects on society? (as in the 1950s and 60s American Civil Rights movement)
Not at all. That's one of the more comparable situations regarding whether there is a legislative need to end segregation or whether to wait for social pressure.
|
On December 13 2012 02:02 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:54 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that? Did you think it through? No, few people would be OK with that, and they would demonstrate that by refusing to eat at McDonalds. McDonalds is a public company and probably would suffer a crippling backlash if they came out and said they would not serve African Americans. That doesn't mean there should be a law preventing them from doing so. In addition, each individual restaurant is held accountable by the corporation, so an individual store manager can't suddenly decide to stop serving black people without facing consequences from those above him. You should probably think about what is socially and economically acceptable before slapping laws onto everything. But a small business owner has the right to refuse service to whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. If that means they won't serve blacks or women that's his prerogative but it's really not a good business model and won't garner him any good will with his community. I've always believed that if you force someone, by law, to put aside their bigotry and prejudices, it's not nearly as effective as showing them that their bigotry and prejudices are no longer acceptable in society. It's already happening, but as religions continue to lose clout among the world's youth they will realize that if they want to perpetuate their faith they need to be able to appeal to this generation. That includes more modern views on homosexuals.
This kind of post tends to completely ignore the historical reality that came from anti-discrimination laws. It's a sort of ad hoc mistake. Since the political climate has changed to be more tolerant of so-called deviants, it's obviously okay for people to discriminate, because they will suffer economic ruination if they do. But to say this completely ignores what actually happened 50 years ago. The reason that it's unacceptable to discriminate now is in part because the anti-discrimination laws increased awareness.
If McDonald's refused to serve African Americans, yes, people would stop going to McDonald's. But, on the other hand, if McDonald's refused to employ a relatively unknown minority (say transgender) then I'd be pretty willing to bet that no one would care. You base your argument on the fact that discrimination against well known and already protected minorities wouldn't be harmed, because it would be economically irrational for a corporation or company to do so. But actually, it's only economically irrational because we systematically made it so. Our anti-discrimination laws contributed to the cultural belief that discriminating against race is not okay. And for those minorities who are not well represented, well, they have no protection, either culturally or legally, so it would perfectly within McDonald's economic inclinations to refuse to hire or serve these people.
In other words, your logic of "economic correcting" only works for those who are already well represented both culturally and legally. It fucks everyone else.
|
On December 13 2012 01:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:54 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that? there is a line of thinking (that I am very sympathetic with) that says if McDonald's did that, they would suffer economic consequences which would either force them to reconsider this policy, or would force them to downgrade the scope of the services they offer. so in either way, the economic reality would force them and their disgusting opinions to be relegated to a much less influential position. it is a common line of thinking in American politics (and elsewhere to a lesser degree) that McDonalds (for example) should be allowed to ban whomever they please, and if the people don't like it, they can stop going to McDonalds. there are definitely arguments for both sides, though, and in my opinion they are both legitimate positions to hold (right to discriminate, no right to discriminate).
Historically the "economic reality" has not been enough to prevent discrimination in certain contexts that is particularly damaging to society, such as food service, lodging, medical care, employment, etc. I don't believe serious commentators make the argument you are citing anymore, because it is clear that people aren't economically rational actors - they would rather discriminate than maximize profit.
|
On December 13 2012 01:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:54 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that? there is a line of thinking (that I am very sympathetic with) that says if McDonald's did that, they would suffer economic consequences which would either force them to reconsider this policy, or would force them to downgrade the scope of the services they offer. so in either way, the economic reality would force them and their disgusting opinions to be relegated to a much less influential position. it is a common line of thinking in American politics (and elsewhere to a lesser degree) that McDonalds (for example) should be allowed to ban whomever they please, and if the people don't like it, they can stop going to McDonalds. there are definitely arguments for both sides, though, and in my opinion they are both legitimate positions to hold (right to discriminate, no right to discriminate).
My problem with this line of thinking is that you are assuming people/companies/'the market' act rationally. The owner of McDonalds might be perfectly happy to take an economic hit as long as he was allowed to continue to be a racist. Also you are assuming consumers are both enlightened and rational, look at the Starbucks scandal in this country, yet people are still a significant amount of people who simply don't care enough about the issue at hand because either it doesn't affect them or they are simply aware that anything is wrong.
For minor changes and minor tweaks I think its all right to wait for society to 'catch up', but when you are trying to break a taboo (e.g. african americans going to Harvard, Women CEOs, Gay Parents) I think the harm is too great for us to simply 'hope' that people see the light as it were.
EDIT: Ninja'd, by a better written post as well 
|
On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally.
But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out."
Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass.
The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on.
But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage.
|
On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage.
But it won't necessarily result in social or economical consequences. There's nothing logically connecting the two. It only results in social or economic consequences if the majority of people have a corresponding belief that such discrimination is wrong. This is not always the case. It wasn't the case 50 years ago, and that's why companies that discriminated proliferated.
|
|
|
On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage.
All of this is fine, but there's no alternative to getting married by religious institutions in most regions in the world, and often there is only THE religious institution endorsed by the state. You are forced to play ball with this club regardless of whether you want to join it or not, or if the owners want to keep you out or not.
|
On December 13 2012 02:28 froggynoddy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 13 2012 01:54 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that? there is a line of thinking (that I am very sympathetic with) that says if McDonald's did that, they would suffer economic consequences which would either force them to reconsider this policy, or would force them to downgrade the scope of the services they offer. so in either way, the economic reality would force them and their disgusting opinions to be relegated to a much less influential position. it is a common line of thinking in American politics (and elsewhere to a lesser degree) that McDonalds (for example) should be allowed to ban whomever they please, and if the people don't like it, they can stop going to McDonalds. there are definitely arguments for both sides, though, and in my opinion they are both legitimate positions to hold (right to discriminate, no right to discriminate). My problem with this line of thinking is that you are assuming people/companies/'the market' act rationally. The owner of McDonalds might be perfectly happy to take an economic hit as long as he was allowed to continue to be a racist. Also you are assuming consumers are both enlightened and rational, look at the Starbucks scandal in this country, yet people are still a significant amount of people who simply don't care enough about the issue at hand because either it doesn't affect them or they are simply aware that anything is wrong. For minor changes and minor tweaks I think its all right to wait for society to 'catch up', but when you are trying to break a taboo (e.g. african americans going to Harvard, Women CEOs, Gay Parents) I think the harm is too great for us to simply 'hope' that people see the light as it were. EDIT: Ninja'd, by a better written post as well
Your Starbucks example isn't a very good one. There is a difference between making a social decision like discrimination and evading your taxes, which is very clearly a legal issue. The government will hopefully get them in line on that particular front, but I'm not sure why you expect the average citizen to give two shits about whether Starbucks pays their taxes.
My issue is that you often cause more harm than good when you try to force people to catch up to the rest of society. Force religions to marry gay couples and you foster resentment. Show religions that if they want to perpetuate their faith in this ever-changing social climate, they need to appeal to the younger generation, and they may decide to change their views on homosexuals. It may take more time, but it's the more organic solution and requires less government intervention.
|
On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage.
I still haven't seen anyone provide any reason for why a church is different than any other business from the perspective of secular law makers. People just keep saying it is...why? Because it's "important" to churchgoers? People are still taking for granted that church is more special than a bakery and I want them to justify it.
|
On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage.
Unlawful discrimination is easier to prove than you might think, and we are getting better at identifying better ways of proving its taken place. For example you can look at the patern of behaviour rather than a single act (e.g. all the people they have 'happened' to exclude are black/gay etc... Anyway just because its difficult to prove does not justify its abolition.
Also I think most people would argue that this 'club's' (I like this term) system of beliefs is incompatible with the system of beliefs by UK civil society. There is no 'right to be free to discriminate' within the concept 'freedom of religion', or at least there shouldn't be IMO.
|
On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage.
I'm curious; Do you think the right to discriminate should be limitless?
|
On December 13 2012 02:34 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. All of this is fine, but there's no alternative to getting married by religious institutions in most regions in the world, and often there is only THE religious institution endorsed by the state. You are forced to play ball with this club regardless of whether you want to join it or not, or if the owners want to keep you out or not.
Which is why I stated, in an earlier post, that I am assuming that secular marriages for homosexual couples exist. If we are suddenly talking about countries that don't allow homosexuals to marry in any sense of the word or custom, that's a completely different can of worms. In that case, I would advise pushing for secular "civil partnerships" before trying to breach the marriage barrier, as it is much easier for people to swallow. Currently I'm imagining a muslim nation suddenly trying to force religious officials to perform gay marriages, and I don't see it going well. Many parts of the world are just behind when it comes to this particular issue, but that doesn't mean we can force them to catch up with everybody else. They have to make the transition slowly like the rest of us did.
|
On December 12 2012 18:20 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote:On December 12 2012 17:39 heliusx wrote:
Guess what, is not a religious concept. what? People were clearly "married" in the essence of making a family and having a monogamous relationship long before there were civilizations or even the invention of writing.
You realize religion was around long before invention of writing, ya?
Lets not pretend that religion created marriage because that is not true.
Yes you're claiming that very loudly but I don't believe you.
Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote:
Seems religious to me. Are there cultures prior to modernity in which marriage is not associated with religious ritual?
As for cultures for whom marriage wasn't a religious ceremony ancient egypt is a clear example.
They didn't have priests? What happens when you get married in ancient egypt? Do you actually know? I don't, but I'd be surprised if you went to the courthouse and signed a contract.
edit: seems they didn't make an enormous deal of it. Whether this is separate from "religion" or not I think is an interesting question. I can't find any convincing source about this. Do you have one?
edit: at any rate, it doesn't matter. It's not a debate over the "intellectual property" of marriage, whether or not it belongs to "religion." The point is that, for the vast majority of the world's population, marriage IS a religious matter. You are far in the minority here. If you'd like to proselytize your views, go ahead, maybe you can convince everybody, but don't act like it's obvious because it's certainly not.
On December 13 2012 02:37 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. I still haven't seen anyone provide any reason for why a church is different than any other business from the perspective of secular law makers. People just keep saying it is...why? Because it's "important" to churchgoers? People are still taking for granted that church is more special than a bakery and I want them to justify it.
Because a church is not a secular institution. You are concerned with matters of ultimate importance. It's one of the most important functions of the church to be opposed in some important way to the secular authority. You're looking for someone to "prove" it to you, when I think you are the one who should give a reason why you think a church and a bakery are the same. Can you say it in a way that doesn't presuppose a secularist worldview?
|
On December 13 2012 02:35 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:28 froggynoddy wrote:On December 13 2012 01:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 13 2012 01:54 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that? there is a line of thinking (that I am very sympathetic with) that says if McDonald's did that, they would suffer economic consequences which would either force them to reconsider this policy, or would force them to downgrade the scope of the services they offer. so in either way, the economic reality would force them and their disgusting opinions to be relegated to a much less influential position. it is a common line of thinking in American politics (and elsewhere to a lesser degree) that McDonalds (for example) should be allowed to ban whomever they please, and if the people don't like it, they can stop going to McDonalds. there are definitely arguments for both sides, though, and in my opinion they are both legitimate positions to hold (right to discriminate, no right to discriminate). My problem with this line of thinking is that you are assuming people/companies/'the market' act rationally. The owner of McDonalds might be perfectly happy to take an economic hit as long as he was allowed to continue to be a racist. Also you are assuming consumers are both enlightened and rational, look at the Starbucks scandal in this country, yet people are still a significant amount of people who simply don't care enough about the issue at hand because either it doesn't affect them or they are simply aware that anything is wrong. For minor changes and minor tweaks I think its all right to wait for society to 'catch up', but when you are trying to break a taboo (e.g. african americans going to Harvard, Women CEOs, Gay Parents) I think the harm is too great for us to simply 'hope' that people see the light as it were. EDIT: Ninja'd, by a better written post as well Your Starbucks example isn't a very good one. There is a difference between making a social decision like discrimination and evading your taxes, which is very clearly a legal issue. The government will hopefully get them in line on that particular front, but I'm not sure why you expect the average citizen to give two shits about whether Starbucks pays their taxes. My issue is that you often cause more harm than good when you try to force people to catch up to the rest of society. Force religions to marry gay couples and you foster resentment. Show religions that if they want to perpetuate their faith in this ever-changing social climate, they need to appeal to the younger generation, and they may decide to change their views on homosexuals. It may take more time, but it's the more organic solution and requires less government intervention.
From what I understand of the situation they were caught tax avoiding (technically a moral issue), not tax evasion (as you said a legal one). I expect the average citizen to care that everyone is contributing to the running of society, perhaps this has a certain political colouring from my point but I still think its rational to expect that everyone pays there taxes properly. That being said I agree, it wasn't a great analogy (most aren't).
I understand with what you are saying, but I think this belief that you cause more harm by intervention is an unproven one and has its own political colouring. As far as I can tell most unpopular decisions with regards to enfranchisement have not had these harmful effects that you mention, women's suffrage (very unpopular, despite the long and prolonged action by women's lib movements) for example.
Anyway its an interesting topic but I have to get back to work. I hope people keep things civil [/bad double entendre].
|
On December 13 2012 02:38 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. I'm curious; Do you think the right to discriminate should be limitless?
The word "limitless" is a bit of a trap, so no. But I believe that it is the right of both the customer and the business to be able to conduct business with whomever they like for whatever reason they deem appropriate. If that reason is inappropriate, by public standards, that will reflect on their business and public perception. This isn't the 1960's, restaurants can't refuse to serve black people on principle and expect that to go over O.K.. I wouldn't agree with their decision to discriminate, and I wouldn't support their business, but I would respect their right to run the business however the fuck they want.
But again, people are getting off-topic with the business discussion. A religion isn't a business. It's essentially a club with a specific set of beliefs. If you force a religion to welcome people they don't want or perform a ceremony in violation of their beliefs, why allow them to exist in the first place? The problem here is the religious association with marriage, and I'm not really sure why people get caught up in it. Unless you are a religious homosexual couple, in which case you should probably re-evaluate your commitment to the faith that doesn't want you.
|
On December 13 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 18:20 heliusx wrote:On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote:On December 12 2012 17:39 heliusx wrote:
Guess what, is not a religious concept. what? People were clearly "married" in the essence of making a family and having a monogamous relationship long before there were civilizations or even the invention of writing. You realize religion was around long before invention of writing, ya? Yes you're claiming that very loudly but I don't believe you. Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote:
Seems religious to me. Are there cultures prior to modernity in which marriage is not associated with religious ritual?
As for cultures for whom marriage wasn't a religious ceremony ancient egypt is a clear example. They didn't have priests? What happens when you get married in ancient egypt? Do you actually know? I don't, but I'd be surprised if you went to the courthouse and signed a contract. edit: seems they didn't make an enormous deal of it. Whether this is separate from "religion" or not I think is an interesting question. I can't find any convincing source about this. Do you have one? Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:37 Klondikebar wrote:On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. I still haven't seen anyone provide any reason for why a church is different than any other business from the perspective of secular law makers. People just keep saying it is...why? Because it's "important" to churchgoers? People are still taking for granted that church is more special than a bakery and I want them to justify it. Because a church is not a secular institution. You are concerned with matters of ultimate importance. It's one of the most important functions of the church to be opposed in some important way to the secular authority. You're looking for someone to "prove" it to you, when I think you are the one who should give a reason why you think a church and a bakery are the same. Can you say it in a way that doesn't presuppose a secularist worldview?
Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws.
From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
Marriage is not by definition religious. It's simply a legal contract.
And again, hand waving about why church is special. Matters of "ultimate importance" don't make it any less a service. So they sell a REALLY AWESOME cupcake...I still don't understand how that makes them more special than a bakery. And the burden of proof is on you to prove they're different, that's the positive assertion. And if a church is supposed to be opposed to a secular authority, then why is it looking to the secular authority for protection?
And I get to presuppose a secular worldview because that's what the legislature is...secular.
|
did you really just quote me a dictionary definition? (edit: and if you'll keep reading even that same article you quoted from, you'll find that it explicitly does not say "not religious by definition")
Is the purpose of the legislature to impose secular worldview on others?
edit: if you ever, ever say "by definition" in order to "prove" something, please take a moment to ask yourself whether you really know what you are saying
edit: ultimate importance DOES make it more than just a service. Your refusal to accept this is AS MUCH OF A RELIGIOUS BELIEF as the opposite. You are simply demanding that others accept your secularist worldview of universal commensurability and so on.
|
On December 13 2012 02:55 sam!zdat wrote:
did you really just quote me a dictionary definition? (edit: and if you'll keep reading even that same article you quoted from, you'll find that it explicitly does not say "not religious by definition")
Is the purpose of the legislature to impose secular worldview on others?
edit: if you ever, ever say "by definition" in order to "prove" something, please take a moment to ask yourself whether you really know what you are saying
Ah so we're going to be skeptical of wikipedia now. Ok, there's nothing left for me to do here.
|
On December 13 2012 02:58 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:55 sam!zdat wrote:
did you really just quote me a dictionary definition? (edit: and if you'll keep reading even that same article you quoted from, you'll find that it explicitly does not say "not religious by definition")
Is the purpose of the legislature to impose secular worldview on others?
edit: if you ever, ever say "by definition" in order to "prove" something, please take a moment to ask yourself whether you really know what you are saying Ah so we're going to be skeptical of wikipedia now. Ok, there's nothing left for me to do here.
If you wrote me a paper about the significance of marriage and quoted from wikipedia, I would fail you.
Yes, on matters of philosophical discourse we will be skeptical of wikipedia. Do you seriously think otherwise?
Is wikipedia your sacred scripture?
edit: this attitude of yours i feel is the height of laziness. You just throw out the first sentence of a wikipedia article and expect a conversation to be over? kids these days...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
