Teens Fleeing Religion at Record Pace

[TakeYouToTasker]

Two consenting adults joining in a government sponsored contract?

Odd that consent is a part of one side of your argument, but that you would deny the baker the right to chose to consent to his own participation or lack of participation. Seems wildly inconsistent to me.

 

Or a non consenting child female being given over to a land owner in exchange for some cows?

That sort of thing is a big problem in your neighborhood?

 

Edited July 6, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[Dorkington]

Odd that consent is a part of one side of your argument, but that you would deny the baker the right to chose to consent to his own participation or lack of participation. Seems wildly inconsistent to me.

 

That sort of thing is a big problem in your neighborhood?

 

Generally if you're running a business, you shouldn't deny service based on race, religion, or sexual orientation, imo.

[Azalin]

 

Islam.

 

I don't think that's fair. Of the Muslims I've known over the years, none have shown either intolerance or an inclination toward violence based on their faith.

Generally if you're running a business, you shouldn't deny service based on race, religion, or sexual orientation, imo.

 

But should you be forced by law to accept and interact with those who offend you?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Generally if you're running a business, you shouldn't deny service based on race, religion, or sexual orientation, imo.

I tend to agree, though I don't feel it's the governments place to enforce through threat of violent force.

 

That said, the baker in question didn't deny service based on any of those factors. The baker simply did not consent, as an adult, to being conscripted to participate in a ceremony he disagreed with.

 

Again, your logic is inconsistent. Is consent required, or not?

[Dorkington]

I tend to agree, though I don't feel it's the governments place to enforce through threat of violent force.

 

That said, the baker in question didn't deny service based on any of those factors. The baker simply did not consent, as an adult, to being conscripted to participate in a ceremony he disagreed with.

 

Again, your logic is inconsistent. Is consent required, or not?

The baker was not getting married, the baker runs a cake making business, they were asked to make a cake, not participate in, or perform a ceremony. The baker denied service based on the sexual orientation of their customers, which as far as I understand, is illegal based on the Civil Rights Act. If they weren't a business serving the public, but rather a religious non profit that only made cakes for their church, then that'd be different.

 

I understand both sides of the situation, and it's a slippery slope either way. I support the Civil Rights Act, in the end, though. If a place of business generally serves the public, then they shouldn't be allowed to deny service on race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or otherwise.

[GG]

I've seen both Catholic and Atheist mentioned... but lets say for the discussion, he was Atheist. What Atheist texts are there that say certain people should be attacked/killed for non Atheist approved views/actions?

 

Don't change the subject. Your point is that if we move further away from religion, violence would decline. Back up your assertion.

[Dorkington]

 

Don't change the subject. Your point is that if we move further away from religion, violence would decline. Back up your assertion.

AFAIK there is no organization or widely followed Atheist text that suggests violence, nor is there any larger trend of Atheism based attacks. If there is, then I'm plenty ready to accept that I am wrong.

 

FWIW, I'm Agnostic, personally.

[boyst]

If you do a google search for "religious texts advocating violence" you'll have an answer... but basically the Abrahamic religions tend to be pretty violent in their texts. I don't know much about Eastern religions though.

 

Just because I think we'd be more peaceful without religion does not mean I think religion is the single cause of all violence.

 

It's difficult to defend my opinions when they are often misinterpreted.

your debating stance is telling the one contradicting your ridiculous stance that religions are violent is to tell that person to look it up themselves? My god you're awful at debate

[Dorkington]

your debating stance is telling the one contradicting your ridiculous stance that religions are violent is to tell that person to look it up themselves? My god you're awful at debate

Thanks for your input.

[GG]

AFAIK there is no organization or widely followed Atheist text that suggests violence, nor is there any larger trend of Atheism based attacks. If there is, then I'm plenty ready to accept that I am wrong.

 

FWIW, I'm Agnostic, personally.

 

That's not your argument. Show data that supports your view that we would see less violence if the US was less religious.

[3rdnlng]

Two consenting adults joining in a government sponsored contract?

 

Or a non consenting child female being given over to a land owner in exchange for some cows?

 

Edit: This is fun http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html

So, a traditional marriage is all about two consenting adults? When did that tradition start? I would suggest that you look up the definition of traditional before you respond.

[Dorkington]

Traditions change over time.

[Rob's House]

The baker was not getting married, the baker runs a cake making business, they were asked to make a cake, not participate in, or perform a ceremony. The baker denied service based on the sexual orientation of their customers, which as far as I understand, is illegal based on the Civil Rights Act. If they weren't a business serving the public, but rather a religious non profit that only made cakes for their church, then that'd be different.

 

I understand both sides of the situation, and it's a slippery slope either way. I support the Civil Rights Act, in the end, though. If a place of business generally serves the public, then they shouldn't be allowed to deny service on race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or otherwise.

Not necessarily. He didn't refuse to make cakes for gay people, he refused to make a cake celebrating a gay marriage. There's a difference.

[Dorkington]

Not necessarily. He didn't refuse to make cakes for gay people, he refused to make a cake celebrating a gay marriage. There's a difference.

Does the baker refuse to make cakes for all marriages? Or just this specific marriage? Why did the baker refuse to make a cake for this marriage? What made this marriage unique to the baker?

[Rob's House]

Does the baker refuse to make cakes for all marriages? Or just this specific marriage? Why did the baker refuse to make a cake for this marriage? What made this marriage unique to the baker?

Because he opposes gay marriage. Refusing to make a cake that celebrates gay marriage is not the same thing as refusing to serve gay people. I'm guessing he wouldn't make a gay wedding cake for straight customers either.

[DC Tom]

Does the baker refuse to make cakes for all marriages? Or just this specific marriage? Why did the baker refuse to make a cake for this marriage? What made this marriage unique to the baker?

 

The point not being "baking a cake for gays who get married." The point being that you write

 

 

Even small things like following a gay couple and calling them names, because (a version of) their bible says that gays are bad.

 

Then turn around and do the exact same !@#$ing thing. Your hate isn't actually "hate," because your beliefs are more valid than theirs.

 

Rob, what religion was that, again, that you said promoted exclusion and violence towards those who are different?

[Dorkington]

Because he opposes gay marriage. Refusing to make a cake that celebrates gay marriage is not the same thing as refusing to serve gay people. I'm guessing he wouldn't make a gay wedding cake for straight customers either.

So they do marriages, but not marriages for gay couples, that means they refused service based on sexuality. End of discussion.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Dorkington

[boyst]

Thanks for your input.

I'm trying to help. You're not making a debate out of this or standing any ground putting out accusations that Christianity or any religion is bad. Religion is very hard to argue against because those who see themselves as relgious do not easily admit their faults en masse. Those who are religious will belong to an institution of others but quickly disassociate themselves from the flock when convenient and define their beliefs as different then those of others - see Muslims and christian extremists.

 

There are good Christians and Muslims and catholics and such. But to see this you must admit knowing that no one is perfect and no one is without fault. A religion is nothing more then a tool in which to in to expressyour beliefs and an apparatus in which to exercise them.

Edited July 6, 2015 by jboyst62

[Rob's House]

So they do marriages, but not marriages for gay couples, that means they refused service based on sexuality. End of discussion.

Do you realize that every time you try to defend your position you instead put forth a new position and leave your previous position undefended?

[Dorkington]

I'm trying to help. You're not making a debate out of this or standing any ground putting out accusations that Christianity or any religion is bad. Religion is very hard to argue against because those who see themselves as relgious do not easily admit their faults en masse. Those who are religious will belong to an institution of others but quickly disassociate themselves from the flock when convenient and define their beliefs as different then those of others - see Muslims and christian extremists.

 

There are good Christians and Muslims and catholics and such. But to see this you must admit knowing that no one is perfect and no one is without fault. A religion is nothing more then a tool in which to in to expressyour beliefs and an apparatus in which to exercise them.

There very much are.

Do you realize that every time you try to defend your position you instead put forth a new position and leave your previous position undefended?

We're playing a game of RISK now?