ChatterBank3 mins ago
Not Against The Law In Arizona To Be A Bigot Apparently
http://
When will Americans realise that you don't give someone freedom by taking it away from somebody else ?
When will Americans realise that you don't give someone freedom by taking it away from somebody else ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
mikey4444
/// Isn't anybody going to address the issue of giving freedom to one group, by taking it away from another group of people ? ///
i already have.
But to enlarge on it, you will always going to take away the freedom of one group by granting it to another group, that is what creates opposition.
And it ls dependant on which side of the fence one is, that decides if they are the winners or the losers.
/// Isn't anybody going to address the issue of giving freedom to one group, by taking it away from another group of people ? ///
i already have.
But to enlarge on it, you will always going to take away the freedom of one group by granting it to another group, that is what creates opposition.
And it ls dependant on which side of the fence one is, that decides if they are the winners or the losers.
This is a law that would, were in enacted here in the UK, have allowed the Bulls to legally refuse accommodation to a gay couple because they would be exercising their right of religious freedom in refusing service.
Which boils down to the right to discriminate on religious grounds. In a secular multi-faith society, where all are considered to be equal regardless of gender, creed or ethnicity, this is a retrograde step.
This would also mean, for instance, muslim shopkeepers refusing to stock or serve alcohol. It would mean going one step further along the road of legitimising Sharia Law, because they are entitled to "exercise their religious freedoms". Should such a law be enacted over here, it would also legitimise the wearing of veils/burkhas in court, as teachers, as other professionals dealing face to face with the public.
Is this what all of you who are offering support to this law in Arizona want?
Just as it is a mistake in my opinion to offer exemptions on religious grounds to Sikhs who ride motorcycles, or work on construction sites, where they can opt-out of wearing safety helmets because of the religious connotations of their turbans.
Which boils down to the right to discriminate on religious grounds. In a secular multi-faith society, where all are considered to be equal regardless of gender, creed or ethnicity, this is a retrograde step.
This would also mean, for instance, muslim shopkeepers refusing to stock or serve alcohol. It would mean going one step further along the road of legitimising Sharia Law, because they are entitled to "exercise their religious freedoms". Should such a law be enacted over here, it would also legitimise the wearing of veils/burkhas in court, as teachers, as other professionals dealing face to face with the public.
Is this what all of you who are offering support to this law in Arizona want?
Just as it is a mistake in my opinion to offer exemptions on religious grounds to Sikhs who ride motorcycles, or work on construction sites, where they can opt-out of wearing safety helmets because of the religious connotations of their turbans.
"Common sense from Arizona at last. Equality means that everyone - gays, Christians, muslims, whatever - has the right to express their views. Bigotry means the reverse, one group denying others the right to express their views. So it's the gays who are the bigots here."
No, not common sense at all. They are perfectly free to express their views - but not to deny service to those who do not conform to their beliefs. Thats bigotry. And if you support those in Arizona, you must logically support those who would wish to enact Sharia Law for example, or to claim other exemptions on the grounds of their religious beliefs. In a modern, secular, multi-faith society which has aspirations towards equality for all, this is a ridiculously retrograde step back towards a time when theocracies were all the rage.
No, not common sense at all. They are perfectly free to express their views - but not to deny service to those who do not conform to their beliefs. Thats bigotry. And if you support those in Arizona, you must logically support those who would wish to enact Sharia Law for example, or to claim other exemptions on the grounds of their religious beliefs. In a modern, secular, multi-faith society which has aspirations towards equality for all, this is a ridiculously retrograde step back towards a time when theocracies were all the rage.
“This would also mean, for instance, muslim shopkeepers refusing to stock or serve alcohol….”
They already can refuse to do so and some do. There is no law requiring any shopkeeper to stock and serve any particular goods.
These issues are always a matter of balance - balancing one lot of rights with another and it is a matter for governments (or in the case of the USA, individual states) to decide what they want. If the majority of people want the right to religious expression to prevail - or at least to be accommodated - then so be it. I don’t believe the proposals in Arizona make it compulsory for any establishment to refuse to serve gay people, only that they should be allowed to do so if they wish. I don’t imagine that all traders will refuse to serve gays - there will still be plenty of places they can trade. But at the same time it satisfies the needs of those who find homosexuality unacceptable. Sounds like a reasonable compromise to a tricky problem.
As far as matters of choice go, I think if you were to ask a Muslim or a Sikh whether following their religion is optional you may find that many of them say it is not. For them they are just as much bound to follow their religion as gay people have no choice in their sexuality. Unfortunately providing some people with a “freedom” will almost always deny some others theirs. In this particular case the restriction on unfettered rights of gay people to demand goods and services will impinge on the rights of religious people to adhere to their religion - and vice versa. Both (or neither) can be considered “bigots” depending on your viewpoint. But the Arizona administration has decided to deal with it the way they have and that should be respected.
Your argument, LG, could be applied equally in reverse. It simply suits you to suggest that the rights of gay people are greater than those of religious people and so those with whom you disagree are conveniently labelled “bigots“. This solution to the argument is supported by UK legislation - hence the framing of our Equality laws that concur with your views. But is simply the way this country has chosen to resolve the conflict. Neither argument is watertight. Both are equally valid. It’s just that Arizona has chosen to resolve the conflict of views differently to us.
They already can refuse to do so and some do. There is no law requiring any shopkeeper to stock and serve any particular goods.
These issues are always a matter of balance - balancing one lot of rights with another and it is a matter for governments (or in the case of the USA, individual states) to decide what they want. If the majority of people want the right to religious expression to prevail - or at least to be accommodated - then so be it. I don’t believe the proposals in Arizona make it compulsory for any establishment to refuse to serve gay people, only that they should be allowed to do so if they wish. I don’t imagine that all traders will refuse to serve gays - there will still be plenty of places they can trade. But at the same time it satisfies the needs of those who find homosexuality unacceptable. Sounds like a reasonable compromise to a tricky problem.
As far as matters of choice go, I think if you were to ask a Muslim or a Sikh whether following their religion is optional you may find that many of them say it is not. For them they are just as much bound to follow their religion as gay people have no choice in their sexuality. Unfortunately providing some people with a “freedom” will almost always deny some others theirs. In this particular case the restriction on unfettered rights of gay people to demand goods and services will impinge on the rights of religious people to adhere to their religion - and vice versa. Both (or neither) can be considered “bigots” depending on your viewpoint. But the Arizona administration has decided to deal with it the way they have and that should be respected.
Your argument, LG, could be applied equally in reverse. It simply suits you to suggest that the rights of gay people are greater than those of religious people and so those with whom you disagree are conveniently labelled “bigots“. This solution to the argument is supported by UK legislation - hence the framing of our Equality laws that concur with your views. But is simply the way this country has chosen to resolve the conflict. Neither argument is watertight. Both are equally valid. It’s just that Arizona has chosen to resolve the conflict of views differently to us.
New Judge. In what way is bigotry "valid" ? There are many people in America that don't like, and actually hate black people. Do you think it would be acceptable for their right not to serve them in a shop to be enshrined in State law ? If so, aren't we going backwards instead of forwards ? Bigotry should be fought against at every turn don't you think ?
"Your argument, LG, could be applied equally in reverse. It simply suits you to suggest that the rights of gay people are greater than those of religious people and so those with whom you disagree are conveniently labelled “bigots“. This solution to the argument is supported by UK legislation - hence the framing of our Equality laws that concur with your views. But is simply the way this country has chosen to resolve the conflict. Neither argument is watertight. Both are equally valid."
Utter bollocks. Where are the rights of "gay people" being preferred? Rather, it is the very human right of equality of all, irrespective of gender, race or creed that is being preferred over intolerance masquerading as a religious right. To refuse service based around a religious principle runs counter to modern society in this country at least. If you wish to favour a theocracy, go move to Saudi.
I am not the one wishing to refuse someone service based around their religious preference or sexual orientation. Quite the contrary; Were I a country house owner I would be more than happy if a christian couple wished to share a room; or an unmarried couple, or a mixed race couple, provided they were of age and it was consensual.
I am not the one wishing to protect the right to segregate genders at public meetings, as some muslim societies wish.
I am not the one wishing to impose veils and "modest dress" on women, unlike the muslim religion.
I am not the one wishing to stop gay people sharing their lives and beds like any other human couple, because of some words in a book.
I am not the one wishing to stop gay couples having equal rights under the law when it comes to marriage.
How is this insistence upon giving precedence to the religious freedom to discriminate any different to the anti-miscegenation laws enacted back in the 1700s? This insistence upon the right to impose lifestyles of their own, or to refuse to recognise entirely legal lifestyles of others by withdrawing their service is bigotry, plain and simple.
Utter bollocks. Where are the rights of "gay people" being preferred? Rather, it is the very human right of equality of all, irrespective of gender, race or creed that is being preferred over intolerance masquerading as a religious right. To refuse service based around a religious principle runs counter to modern society in this country at least. If you wish to favour a theocracy, go move to Saudi.
I am not the one wishing to refuse someone service based around their religious preference or sexual orientation. Quite the contrary; Were I a country house owner I would be more than happy if a christian couple wished to share a room; or an unmarried couple, or a mixed race couple, provided they were of age and it was consensual.
I am not the one wishing to protect the right to segregate genders at public meetings, as some muslim societies wish.
I am not the one wishing to impose veils and "modest dress" on women, unlike the muslim religion.
I am not the one wishing to stop gay people sharing their lives and beds like any other human couple, because of some words in a book.
I am not the one wishing to stop gay couples having equal rights under the law when it comes to marriage.
How is this insistence upon giving precedence to the religious freedom to discriminate any different to the anti-miscegenation laws enacted back in the 1700s? This insistence upon the right to impose lifestyles of their own, or to refuse to recognise entirely legal lifestyles of others by withdrawing their service is bigotry, plain and simple.
It seems to me that at times the gay minority overly relish their right impose their will on others. I am not an apologist for religious believers but I think that the concept of live and let live contains within it the need for compromise. There is no need for a triumphal parade of gay rights at every opportunity. Perhaps some more extreme gays should exercise their new found powers with a little more discretion and understanding, just as they demand the understanding of others.
Religious "rights" should never take preference over law.
In fact, in town today, buying a new phone, there was a hare Krishna group singing and making a racket. The police were called and said they couldn't move them on "because they were religious". Carphone Warehouse, a newsagent, Thomas Cook and Waterstones all shut their shops early- because they literally couldn't hear the customers. I don't see how that's fair.
In fact, in town today, buying a new phone, there was a hare Krishna group singing and making a racket. The police were called and said they couldn't move them on "because they were religious". Carphone Warehouse, a newsagent, Thomas Cook and Waterstones all shut their shops early- because they literally couldn't hear the customers. I don't see how that's fair.
The issue of race is not at stake here, Mikey. As far as I know (though I may be wrong) no religion suggests that people of different races are unacceptable.
No you are not wanting to impose segregation or discrimination on anybody, LG. Whilst I won’t do you the disservice of dismissing it as utter bollocks, that isn’t the point.
In Arizona they have a conflict of interests where people of some religions find homosexuality unacceptable. However distasteful, irrational or unacceptable you and others may find that, they are entitled to hold that view. I find it completely irrational myself but accept that some people do not. Life’s not always entirely fair and not everybody likes or can tolerate everybody else. Arizona has chosen to act the way it has in order to try to accommodate everybody’s views. Gay people are unlikely to be unduly affected by the measure. They will soon learn where they are welcome (which will probably be almost everywhere) and where they are not. There are places where I, as an older person and something I can do nothing about, am not welcome. It’s no big deal. I know where they are and avoid them.
However unacceptable to you it may seem, some people are highly driven by the requirements of their religion. It is no more “fair” to force them to deny their faith than it is to force gay people to go straight. Nobody is suggesting that gays be hunted down and burned at the stake. Accommodation can be found for people who do not like each other to avoid each other and there is no need to force people together.
By the way, I have no religion and cannot understand how anybody can have their lives dictated by any religious dogma. But I accept that they some people do and I feel they should be accommodated even if it does mean upsetting a few others here and there.
No you are not wanting to impose segregation or discrimination on anybody, LG. Whilst I won’t do you the disservice of dismissing it as utter bollocks, that isn’t the point.
In Arizona they have a conflict of interests where people of some religions find homosexuality unacceptable. However distasteful, irrational or unacceptable you and others may find that, they are entitled to hold that view. I find it completely irrational myself but accept that some people do not. Life’s not always entirely fair and not everybody likes or can tolerate everybody else. Arizona has chosen to act the way it has in order to try to accommodate everybody’s views. Gay people are unlikely to be unduly affected by the measure. They will soon learn where they are welcome (which will probably be almost everywhere) and where they are not. There are places where I, as an older person and something I can do nothing about, am not welcome. It’s no big deal. I know where they are and avoid them.
However unacceptable to you it may seem, some people are highly driven by the requirements of their religion. It is no more “fair” to force them to deny their faith than it is to force gay people to go straight. Nobody is suggesting that gays be hunted down and burned at the stake. Accommodation can be found for people who do not like each other to avoid each other and there is no need to force people together.
By the way, I have no religion and cannot understand how anybody can have their lives dictated by any religious dogma. But I accept that they some people do and I feel they should be accommodated even if it does mean upsetting a few others here and there.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
News7 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Time For A Limit On Angry Posts
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Starmer In Jobs Push.....right Oh!
News32 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.