Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian
Getting a little far off the topic of a group of people being able to express themselves at a public event here...
But the issue as I see it is that people are trying to use religion to support a discriminatory attitude towards a group of people in our society. If we allow "religions freedom" to be an excuse to discriminate beyond the letter of the law and justify that with the first amendment, what is to stop someone from establishing a religion for any kind of discrimination they feel they should be free to support?
|
The problem in most discussions like these is when they have no common basic principle on which the discussion revolves, or is about. "But the issue as I see it" creates unfocussed discussion which cannot be resolved when arguers "see it" differently. Having no unifying principles on which all agree leaves all to expound on and adhere to their personal vision. There can be no agreement, and the discussion goes round and round, eventually saying the same things over and over . . . ad infinitum . . . pointlessly. There is no point on which agreement can be reached, there is only personal opinion.
Your opinion ("as I see it)" is that people are using religion to support discriminatory attitude. The people who are religious "see it" differently. They "see it" as acting in accordance to their religion, even when their own personal feeling and their business profit would make them act differently. How can there be a discussion between such parties, much less a resolution? I don't know why you must see it that way, perhaps because you "see" religion as a fraud and those who practice it as frauds who don't actually believe but just use religion as an excuse to practice things you don't agree with. It would be simpler to believe they are actually sincere. But we humans are often suspicious of the simplest explanation--sometimes with good reason.
But the confusion in argument that occurs between irreconcilable points of view is exacerbated to the extreme when even the true fundamentals that should underlie the discussion are contorted out of all recognition. What is this notion of allowing religious freedom to be an "excuse to discriminate beyond the letter of the law" and justifying that with the First Amendment? Religious freedom in the First amendment IS the letter of the law. It is not an excuse to discriminate beyond its own letter. It is the letter. And religion can establish any kind of "discrimination" it wishes--so long as the practice of it doesn't deny others their unalienable rights. The First amendment is, among other things, not a prescription of how religious people are allowed to act, but a protection against others denying their right to act so long as there is mutual protection before the law.
If the Bakers or Photographers forced the gays not to be gay, or to join their religion, or denied the gays their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or their first amendment rights, the letter of the law would stop them from doing so. By the same token, the letter of the law should deny the gays from compelling to do what is against the bakers' or photographers' conscience. But when government creates laws, which themselves break that original letter of the law by allowing one to impose his "rights" on another against his rights, then the law is broken. Then you have rule by men, not rule of law. Then law becomes opinion. Then law becomes "how I see it" by judges and legislators. And then what's to stop legislators and judges, no longer constrained by constitutional principles, from establishing laws that discriminate against what YOU hold dear.
I would think that, if you truly understood the fundamental principle of the First Amendment, I would think that unprincipled "how I see it" formation of law would be more of a threat to you than some religion, bound by constitutional PRINCIPLES, establishing internal discriminations. I would think that would be the "slippery slope" that you would fear.
Hybrid Mode
