I don't buy the theory either, or at least I don't have a reason to.
Originally Posted by The Impaler
But contrary to your second sentence, I think it'd be easy for someone to think their feelings although innate were morally wrong. Lots of people have innate feelings of a sexual or violent nature that their religion tells them to squash. For example, most religious married men think their gut-level instinct to sleep around is morally wrong. So a secretly-gay case would be like a much more extreme/difficult version of that.
RB was put in an orphanage and stuff, probably didn't always have a strongest sense that his innermost feelings were worthy. But still, yeah I don't buy this theory about RB, I just wanted to point out how I would understand someone having misplaced anger if they in fact lived their life that way.
Right, still not an anti-discrimination clause and still is not relevant to the argument. Because as it stands right now, religion is not generally an acceptable excuse for other sorts of inappropriate discrimination. Homosexual behavior is neither harmful in of itself nor is it a choice, based on all of the observable evidence. If I can't use my religion as an excuse for hating women , blacks or Moslems then why is it an excuse for gays. Like I said before you would have a decent case if it weren't for stuff like the legal precedents for anti-discrimination laws, and everything that scientists have observes about the gay community.
Originally Posted by SealBeachHusker
Also, bigotry is not a particularly strong word in this case because that's exactly what this is, try firing someone for just being a Christian. Yet they are attempting to deny the same protection to gays. Also, I'm not advocating public hiring and housing discrimination against Christians, simply advocating the idea that our public code should not have exception because of the dogmas of a popular religion. What you're saying is that by not supporting public tolerance of intolerance that I am somehow intolerant my self. A non sequitur if I ever read one.
Also, to all of you who claim that our ethics are beholden to Christianity, I say you are ignoring the history of your own church, and of ethical thought in general. There are many more relevant thoughts on ethical behavior then just the ones contained in the dogmas of Christianity. Also, you should know that by saying that ethics and morals require christian thought, you are insulting any secularists who reads your writing. The most insulting thing I've read was the idea that without God "anything goes" I have a hard time thinking of anything more arrogant, disrespectful and flat out inaccurate.
Careful Sealbeach, CM likes twisting things to prove a point. You should ask CM, if there is a religion that believed in human sacrifice does the Constitution protect that religion's right to believe in human sacrifice? Then ask him does it protect the right to practice human sacrifice? There is a difference in how laws cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, but they can with how religion is practiced.
Originally Posted by cm husker
After you get that answer, you should then ask him how the Supreme Court interprets the Free Excercise Clause of the Constitution particularly in one of Chi's favorite cases, Hosana Tabor. Then ask him how the court sees the difference in the Hosana Tabor case vs. the extreme example of human sacrifice that he provided.
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand
"Hillary has been cheated on more than a blind woman playing Scrabble. With gypsies." Dennis Miller
1 - 20 - 17
"Change is Coming"