LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

I'll be praying for Polar to have a happy marriage. That's it.

1) I'm not Polarstern, so I cannot speak on behalf of her, neither should you.

2) Again, you're still being a little tacky. You put homosexuality on the same level as adultery.

3) If I was a Christian, I would follow what the bible says and keep my prayers behind a curtain.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

1. I'm not sure where I'm speaking on her behalf.

2. That's where it is in my belief system. your point?

3. You clearly don't know baptists very well. I'm going to be praying for her, you seem to think that my prayer is incorrect somehow so I ask that you put it to rights. if you think the prayer is fine, I just should pray it privately say that.

Don't all mainstream Christian sects say you should not make a show of your prayer?

edited 22nd Feb '14 8:36:49 PM by Wildcard

METAL GEAR!?

It's nuanced. Suffice to say, coming here, posting something along the lines of what I pray and asking for advice from the people I'm praying for does not fall under it.

Yep. The person who goes out in public and makes his prayers obvious is less righteous than the guy who prays in his closet. (Pun not intended here).

Not Three Laws compliant.

Isn't that exactly what I said?

Keep your prayers to yourself, especially when you're being bigoted.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

It's pretty explicit about that, yeah.

I dunno, this sounds pretty straightforward to me. Jesus didn't tend to dick around about this sort of thing.

@Soban

Please re-arrange the following words into a well known phrase or saying:

Hole. Digging. When. Stop. Down. A.

@Polar

That's absolutely wonderful news. Slainte mhor agus a h-uile beannachd duibh.

edited 23rd Feb '14 2:28:44 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Congratulations, Polar. I hope things go great.

...It's weird having so many websites and no way to properly display now, lol.

I could have commented on the previous page, but I chose not to. Except to say this: congratulations to you and your family Polar.

Mayor of Phoenix denounces Arizona bill that would legalize religion based discrimination (targeting LGBT people).

I had a debate about that with someone yesterday, they claimed that the law is defensible because freedom is an absolute good and no one has the freedom not to be discriminated against. The person believes that everyone has the right to refuse service to anyone else for any reason, with those refused service still having full freedom - the freedom to go elsewhere or to set up their own business. They believe that the freemarket will see discriminating businesses out of business if they're really that bad.

The debate did descend into something of a farce when claiming that a Muslim storeowner who refused to serve women could legally get away with claiming doing so was against his religion, and that the person's wife could just go to another store, but the principle was stuck to.

There's just no reasoning with such people, I fear, as they're technically correct that those discriminated against could go elsewhere. Obviously that's abhorent and as far as I'm concerned anyone who thinks that is almost certainly morally bankrupt, but how does one refute the notion that freedom is an - the, even - absolute good in and of itself when the person refuses to see otherwise?

Obviously I don't ask to continue that debate, but it's an interesting conundrum without an obvious answer. I do hold that the freedom from discrimination is as important as the freedom to practise one's religion, and in any case nowhere in the bible does it say that conducting business with sinners is in itself a sin (meaning that it's seriously hard to argue that anyone's religious rights are impeded in the first place), which is as close as I can get, I think.

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.

Freedom from discrimination is much more desirable than the freedom to discriminate. The first causes some people aggravation, but the second can cause huge socio-cultural issues.

Not Three Laws compliant.

By that logic, this bill is still wrong because it gives religious people freedom from "discrimination". I don't think being unable to deny services to an entire class of people because "God/Allah/YHWH/Zeus/Odin/Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia said I could" constitutes real discrimination, but clearly others feel differently.

edited 23rd Feb '14 10:32:33 AM by Morgikit

Does a religion have to be government-recognized before it would become government-protected? Because it couldn't be fair to say "My religion forbids paying taxes" or "My religion prohibits me from following your law".

But the long-standing religions have a lot more protection that any made-up-on-the-spot beliefs do.

edited 27th Feb '14 11:19:10 AM by Keybreak

There are government rules that must be followed to be considered a religion. The church is generally exempt from taxes; the members are not. There have been churches that have tried some creative accounting to get around that measure, and they tend to get busted by the IRS.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

For a religious group to be exempt from taxes like the Amish, they have to prove they mean no harm to the masses (not a cult) and they aren't reliant on American infrastructure.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

A good essay by the pizzaria owner who put up the sign in Tucson. Includes this gem:

But the real brilliance of the piece is in the last paragraph (emphasis mine):

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Y'know, while I hate to encourage it, business owners not wanting LGBT folk in their shops—for religious reasons or otherwise—could manage it with relative ease. If you ban this or that discriminated group, people are reminded of segregation and coloured triangles/six pointed stars being sewn on clothing and painted on windows.

If you pull a Chik-Fil-A, they'll boycott your shop willingly.

Fire, air, water, earth...legend has it that when these four elements are gathered, they will form the fifth element...boron.

The problem with that is that the business then also loses out on plenty of business from straight people as well, on top of loads of (usually bad) publicity.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Are you suggesting anyone who refuses their services to gay people won't have a lot of straight people going elsewhere too?

Actually, if Chik-fil-A is any indication, there will be a line out into the street of people willing to patronize your business just to teach the queers a lesson: don't choose not to eat fast food for reasons the Religious Right doesn't like.

In the short run, it probably evens out. The long run might be different, but I think once people start a boycott it usually sticks.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Conversely, if you pass state laws restricting those people, you'll have people boycotting your state. As an elected representative whose job is to protect and serve the interests of the state as a whole, a decision that makes business owners reluctant or even downright unwilling to operate in your state is a bad one. As noted in the article, larger businesses actually decided against setting up shop in Arizona because of the bill, equating Arizona to "the American Uganda".

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.