Not Against The Law In Arizona To Be A Bigot Apparently

mikey4444 | 11:28 Sun 23rd Feb 2014 | News

76 Answers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26299559

When will Americans realise that you don't give someone freedom by taking it away from somebody else ?

"millions Of Patients 'unable To See Gps'"

Chaos In Kiev Could Set Off A Tsunami That Will Toss Western Europe From Its Moorings Too

Answers

61 to 76 of 76

First Previous 1 2 3 4

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.

sp1814

jomifl

You wrote:

"It is also the choice of everybody to avoid things that which they find abhorrent even if that abhorrence is irrational and based on a religious prejudice."

I understand that sentiment - I hate greens and will actively avoid meals that contain cabbage, spinach, pak choi etc.

I also have a phobia of rats, so I will ensure that as far as possible, I don't come into contact with them.

However, gay people are not 'things'. When you exercise a prejudice and this bigotry is against your fellow human, you are negatively affecting them.

Avoidance of 'things' affects no-one but oneself.

And it's a slippery slope. If this law is upheld, how long before companies are allowed to fire gay people based on their sexuality?

sp1814

jomifi

Easy...

Couple get into cab, one answers his mobile phone and has a brief conversation. His companion asks him "Who was that?" First man says, "Oh, it's my boyfriend - he says he's running late and to meet him there".

jomifl

sp, a 'thing' is 'an object being or entity'.
Dismissal on grounds of sexuality is a different issue as is recruitment on grounds of sexuality.
Feel free to start a thread on this topic, I'm sure that all the usual suspects will contribute generously.

naomi24

The question should be how to teach the religious that the world doesn't revolve around them. We have to start saying 'no' to this incessant demand for ‘respect’ that we’re all expected to have for their beliefs, albeit to the detriment of others. Religion speaks and society concedes - hence the absence of the crash helmet for Sikhs.

sp1814

jomifl

No - what I'm saying is that it would be perfectly feasible for religious fanatics to say, "Look, now that I can legally refuse to offer services to gay people, why am I forced to work alongside them...you are not allowing me my religious freedom not to deal with gay people in my daily life".

And then bang - you're now looking at laws which mean that gay people can be refused employment or sacked from their jobs in order to guarantee 'freedom of religion'.

Slippery slope.

jomifl

Thanks sp, I'd say that the cab driver was invading the fare's privacy by listening in to the conversation. A complete over reaction by the cab driver in my view but then I'm not a theist.

jomifl

sp, I take your point but I think that if you push the religiously intolerant too far there will be a backlash as appears to be happening in Arizona. The law of unintended consequences may begin to operate as it often does

brionon

We tolerate the Religions who wish to slaughter animals cruelly. !!

Kromovaracun

I would accept the arguments about freedom of expression and opinion supporting this, if it weren't for one crucial difference....

The difference is that one side here is clearly, unambiguously wrong. If you believe homosexuality to be dangerous, or objectionable enough to refuse service to people you think might be gay... then you're just wrong. The evidence is clear. The argument is pretty much over. You're just wrong. We can retrace it if people need it, but there's a clear winner.

The whole point of freedom of speech is that ideas can get tested - I can put an idea out, and other people can find the flaws in it. Eventually, this leads to a bedrock of ideas that just aren't valid and don't particularly deserve the protection of the law.

jomifl

Unfortunately moral values are no more absolute now than they were when we were burning witches or stoning people to death so long ago. That is the problem they don't change everywhere at the same pace and never will, that is the nearest there is to an absolute.

New Judge

"The difference is that one side here is clearly, unambiguously wrong."

And thus here endeth the debate !!! :-)

LazyGun

@NJ If you can come up with a compelling and valid reason to discriminate against individuals by virtue solely of their sexual orientation, you go right ahead.

The debate is lost if you cannot come up with an objective and evidence-based reason, and I do not believe that you can, which is why we keep getting these redundant and frankly quite risible arguments about it being against god, or being an abomination, or anti-evolutionary or whatever.

Quite separately from that, you also have to take account of the fact that common cultural values will change over time, sometimes very quickly, over the span of decades only. The whole issue of equality for homosexuals is a graphic case in point. In the developed world, the argument for discrimination has been lost; the most vociferous hold-outs tend to be religious fundamentalists or evangelicals.

Nigeria is a case in point, where some quite harsh anti-gay laws have been introduced, based principally around religious values.

LazyGun

Even some of those Republican state senators who originally voted for the bill are now urging the Governor to veto the bill now, it seems, along with most of the Arizona business community. It will be interesting to see what she does next week;

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/24/arizona-republicans--governor-veto-anti-gay-bill?CMP=twt_fd

mikey4444

Question Author

Some good news at last then LG.