Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
BrooklynGuy

The War on Faith in America

224 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

lightly
On October 19, 2019 at 2:56 AM, Kismit said:

I am not sure what Santa clause and Christ have to do with each other, other than a shared date. Or was Santa perhaps an otherwise unmentioned wise man? Frankincense, gold,  myrhh and candy canes?

    Gifts.  one received gifts (at his birth)  ,and the other brings gifts.   So ,ya, lol, Santa is like the wise men. ;)

...but, you know,   ..Santa and "Christmas" were both based on earlier traditions and practices.    And the idea of 'special' proficiesed births   and births of kings   and kings of kings  is also based on earlier traditions.

...the dates for all of it sort of blur together....but , the common link in all of it is the birth of the new Sun at winter solstice...Dec. 21st. . . . and all the associated celebrations.  ?

Edited by lightly
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
On 10/17/2019 at 7:39 PM, aztek said:

you mean  war on people who discriminate against others religious beliefs?  like in gay cake case? 

should your imaginary gender be above my religious beliefs? 

Lets see, one is solidly backed by the scientific community, the other is based on some old book, written by a random selection of men who were obviously enjoying some very interesting mushrooms. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
8 minutes ago, Setton said:

Lets see, one is solidly backed by the scientific community, the other is based on some old book, written by a random selection of men who were obviously enjoying some very interesting mushrooms. 

There is some Science behind homo/trans/poly sexuality but I wouldn't call it "solid". You're missing the point about Government intervention in peop- never mind. I just saw your location is England. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
17 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

There is some Science behind homo/trans/poly sexuality but I wouldn't call it "solid".

Of course you wouldn't, it's only in peer reviewed journals, not twitter :rolleyes:

Quote

You're missing the point about Government intervention in peop- never mind. I just saw your location is England. 

Yes, how unfortunate I am to live in a country where I am protected by law from discrimination on the grounds of age, belief, sexuality, gender, race etc. 

Clearly the first step on the path to tyranny. 

Edited by Setton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ethereal_scout

I'm for religion the difficulty is that it exists to be an aid to the understood. Those who can't understand things (ie Satanists) just exist destroy what they can't understand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
1 hour ago, Setton said:

Of course you wouldn't, it's only in peer reviewed journals, not twitter :rolleyes:

Links? A final consensus would be best so I don't have to weed through 50 "inconclusive" articles.

Quote

Yes, how unfortunate I am to live in a country where I am protected by law from discrimination on the grounds of age, belief, sexuality, gender, race etc. 

No protections for religious rights? 

Quote

Clearly the first step on the path to tyranny. 

You need a license to cut a cantaloupe. Tyranny is already there.

Edit to add--

I changed my mind. Don't worry about the article links. It doesn't matter if being gay is due to nature or nurture, the shop owner still has the right to refuse service and the Government should have no right to force his hand. As I mentioned earlier, if you have a problem with a shop, go to a different shop.

Edited by Dark_Grey
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
1 hour ago, Dark_Grey said:

No protections for religious rights? 

You see the word 'belief' right there in my post? 

Quote

You need a license to cut a cantaloupe. Tyranny is already there.

Sure it is. 

If you look in the dictionary, we can all see that the definition of tyranny is not being allowed to have your kids shot by a nutcase at school. 

Edited by Setton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
1 hour ago, Dark_Grey said:

changed my mind. Don't worry about the article links. It doesn't matter if being gay is due to nature or nurture, the shop owner still has the right to refuse service and the Government should have no right to force his hand. As I mentioned earlier, if you have a problem with a shop, go to a different shop.

What country or time or you living in?  Heard of the Civil Right s Act?  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
16 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

What country or time or you living in?  Heard of the Civil Right s Act?  

Yup.    If you choose to operate a PUBLIC business, you should be required, by law, to serve the entire public.

of course if someone is creating a disturbance, you should be allowed to ask them to leave...if that fails, call the cops. ?

you can choose who enters your home, or private property.

     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
17 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

I changed my mind. Don't worry about the article links. It doesn't matter if being gay is due to nature or nurture, the shop owner still has the right to refuse service and the Government should have no right to force his hand. As I mentioned earlier, if you have a problem with a shop, go to a different shop.

What if you live in a rural area...and there is only one hardware store within 50 miles , or something like that?

if any person is not causing a disturbance, they should have the right to service in a public shop?

.  If a shop owner wishes to not serve the entire public, he has the right to shut down...or sell the shop.  ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
16 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

What country or time or you living in?  Heard of the Civil Right s Act?  

17 minutes ago, lightly said:

Yup.    If you choose to operate a PUBLIC business, you should be required, by law, to serve the entire public.

What if someone isn't wearing a shirt or shoes? Can you still refuse them service? Doesn't that discriminate against the shirtless?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
2 minutes ago, lightly said:

What if you live in a rural area...and there is only one hardware store within 50 miles , or something like that?

Move to a different house? That guy is probably a trans person of color, stuck in a wheelchair. I hate arguing against hypothetical extremes.

Quote

if any person is not causing a disturbance, they should have the right to service in a public shop?

.  If a shop owner wishes to not serve the entire public, he has the right to shut down...or sell the shop.  ?

Or the customer can go to a different shop? Which is less intrusive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
16 hours ago, Setton said:

If you look in the dictionary, we can all see that the definition of tyranny is not being allowed to have your kids shot by a nutcase at school. 

What about stabbed to death or run over? Hold on, you guys do have knife laws now so I guess that argument is off the table since stabbings have dropped to zero, right?

They haven't? How odd. England has become the poster child for how ineffective and pointless weapon bans are. In fact, I think I'll use your knife laws the next time someone argues to have our guns taken. It's a great example.

I don't really think you live under tyranny. I think tyranny exists in every country to varying degrees. Your country just happens to have more of it than mine. In 20 years, we will probably be at a similar level. Thankfully, I can sharpen a stick much easier than I can make a gun so skirting that law is a no brainer.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
21 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

if someone isn't wearing a shirt or shoes? Can you still refuse them service? Doesn't that discriminate against the shirtless?

Yes you can refuse them service,  because, it is the Law that bans shirtless and shoeless entry into, most, public places for public health reasons.  

 

Edited by lightly
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey

Instead of arguing over laws we (mostly myself,) half understand, let's see what the law actually says regarding "right to refuse service":

LegalZoom

Quote

At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

@Tatetopa - good call with the Civil Rights Act.

Quote

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress.

So only in Cali can someone with no shirt or shoes claim "discrimination" lol makes sense.

Quote

If there’s an anti-discrimination law, does that mean that a business can never refuse service to a member of a group that is protected from discrimination?

The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.

So you can refuse to serve a protected group as long as it's not on the basis of any protected status. Ergo, if a gay couple wants a wedding cake but I don't make wedding cakes, I can refuse them. They will probably run to the tabloids but I would be within my rights as that is an arbitrary reason.

Quote

In the second case, a baker refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, saying that it violated his religious beliefs. The court held the baker liable, saying that his reason was just a pretext for discriminating against gays.

Religious protections: denied.

Quote

“No shirt, no shoes, no service” on the other hand, is a clear dress code that could also relate to health and safety issues. You usually see the sign in beach towns where tourists of all kinds are apt to be walking around shirtless or shoeless. As long as the policy is applied to everyone equally, it’s not likely to violate any discrimination laws.

Well that settles that.

There seems to be a lot of wiggle room and interpretation involved. That's law for you.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
2 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

What about stabbed to death or run over? Hold on, you guys do have knife laws now so I guess that argument is off the table since stabbings have dropped to zero, right?

Deaths by gun violence in the US - 16000 (2017 figure, without suicides). 

Deaths by knife violence in the UK - 285 (2017/18)

Given our relative population sizes, that is 1/10 of what it should be. 

Our laws work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
3 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

What if someone isn't wearing a shirt or shoes? Can you still refuse them service? Doesn't that discriminate against the shirtless?

Indeed it does, but being shirtless is not a protected class. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

We live in a society that is "pretty" free, but not anarchy.  Some of our laws are there to protect the right to be unavoidably different.  That is my phrase, not a legal one.  We protect the rights of citizens and consider all citizens equal even though they might have come to the US from different countries or be different colors.  In addition we have added faith to that.  It seems reasonable to me, and you might disagree, that something so basic to your personality as your faith might also be considered an unavoidable difference.  You would not change your faith internally just to fit in, and we do protect that right.

As a society, we profess not to censure your internal thoughts and moral compass, but we do say something about how you interact with other citizens.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor Witness

Jesus was a great liberal in His day. In fact, He was a flaming liberal.

He stood up for women, when the established thinking was to put poor women in their place, and even murder them. He stood up for children, in no uncertain terms, when they were to be seen and not heard. These were the weakest members of His society. Yet, He even went further, with the story of the good Samaritan, which was the foreigner. Contrast this with the Justice Department's rabid treatment of Christians attempting to access our southern border and you have the teachings of Darkness.

Attorney General William Barr, by seeking to divide U.S. serves only one purpose. He is the opposite of Jesus Christ.  For this reason, the plagas against him and his political house shall swell like a tsunami. They will hear the rumbling of the earth, but think nothing of it, until they are swept away, and into the sea, never to be seen or heard from again. Covered with silt and sorrow, until the end of time, far and away, into the abyss.

Mater, perdat vomitu in parallel lines

Edited by Raptor Witness
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
On 10/22/2019 at 2:12 PM, Dark_Grey said:

There is some Science behind homo/trans/poly sexuality but I wouldn't call it "solid". You're missing the point about Government intervention in peop- never mind. I just saw your location is England. 

You are missing the church/synagoge/mosque intervention in free peop-never mind.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
12 hours ago, odas said:

You are missing the church/synagoge/mosque intervention in free peop-never mind.

I'm listening....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
4 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

I'm listening....

Easy, once the abrahamic faith followers can find a common ground on faith, religion and beliefe among themself, inside and outside their respective followers, once they stop killing each other because of stupid nonsens, then they can lecture us on peace and how there is a "war against faith". 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
12 minutes ago, odas said:

Easy, once the abrahamic faith followers can find a common ground on faith, religion and beliefe among themself, inside and outside their respective followers, once they stop killing each other because of stupid nonsens, then they can lecture us on peace and how there is a "war against faith". 

Internal religious battles can exist while religion is externally being trampled on. Those concepts aren't exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
14 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

Internal religious battles can exist while religion is externally being trampled on. Those concepts aren't exclusive.

Do you think religion is being trampled on in the U.S.?  And I don't mean by other religions, which is what I see.  Do you actually think non-religious are trampling on religious?  And if so, please give some examples.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy

Unfortunately it appears some of you folks are getting religion, the often ceremonial practice of one's faith usually in a house of worship, confused with an individual's rights or lack there of based on their personal beliefs often derived from their faith imho. Carry on :tu:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.