Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian
I was simply pointing out the similarities in each type of discrimination. I think if you asked the photographers and bakers if they were discriminating based on sexual orientation, they would admit it.
It has been pointed out, over and over, that the so-called "discrimination" was based on a refusal to participate in something their religion prohibited. The bakers and photographers didn't refuse to take photos or bake cakes for the gay's non-wedding occasions, only for same sex weddings. So they were not "discriminating" based on sexual orientation, but in order not to trespass commandments of their religion.
I think anyone who wants to practice their own religious beliefs is more than welcome and that right is protected under the Constitution. Where my personal views (and those of others as well apparently) differ from yours is when those beliefs tread on the civil liberties of others. I think the civil rights movement meant something, and I don't see a difference between discrimination based on the color of one's skin and the sex of the person they choose to love.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
I don't think you and Jim are disagreeing about not treading on civil rights. The problem, which I described in about 10 posts above this is when civil rights conflict. It is true that people have unalienable rights to love who they wish. But they do not have an unalienable right to demand that someone else participate in or facilitate their right to love. They only have the right not to be interfered in their right to love. And in the case of the photographers, bakers, and gays disputes, the photographers not only have unalienable rights to practice their religion when it doesn't interfere with the right of the gays to love who they wish, but their right is specifically encoded in the Constitution. Anti-discrimination rights, for the most part, actually deny one of the parties their right of association, speech, or religion. As such they are rights prescribed by government, and insofar as they force one party to lose their right in favor of the other party, they are not unalienable rights.
The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's were, as I've stated, not about blacks having the right to be black. It was about establishing the unalienable rights of blacks such as freedom of speech, of religion, of association, of owning property, as well as the constitutionally guaranteed right to equality before the law. But they were not about abrogating others those same rights. It was not about guaranteeing blacks the right to impose their point of view in parades whose purpose is something else.