ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 3rd September 2019, 11:58 PM   #1
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 26,928
Mississippi wedding venue refuses interracial pair over owner's Christian faith

Taking the title directly from the BBC report.

In post-racial America, one misinformed and confused business owner thinks that the Bible prohibits mixed marriages.

Quote:
A US interracial couple was turned away by a wedding venue because the owner said their union went against her Christian beliefs, video shows.

The footage was filmed at Boone's Camp Event Hall in Booneville, Mississippi, by the groom's sister who met the woman about the rejection.

During the exchange the owner says the decision was because we "don't do gay weddings or mixed race".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49571207

After a social media storm, the business owner spoke to their pastor who put her straight on the matter:

Quote:
The Facebook page for Boone's Camp Event Hall was taken offline following the video's release, but later re-opened on Sunday to post a lengthy apology before being closed again.

In the post the owner said she had been taught as a child that people were meant to stay "with your own race" but that after consulting with her pastor she now realised nothing in the bible prohibited interracial marriages.
She clearly got the idea from somewhere and I'd be shocked if that idea wasn't still being promoted in some churches. Clearly both the business owner and the pastor don't want the bad publicity and so I'm sceptical whether the epiphany she has had is genuine.

Then again, Mississippi is a bulwark of intolerance religious freedom against the tide of equality godless communism.

Quote:
In 2016, Mississippi passed a first of its kind law that protects "sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions", meaning businesses can legally refuse service to same-sex partners and transgender people.

The law, which was meant to preserve religious freedom, does not mention race.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 09:16 AM   #2
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,395
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
She clearly got the idea from somewhere and I'd be shocked if that idea wasn't still being promoted in some churches. Clearly both the business owner and the pastor don't want the bad publicity and so I'm sceptical whether the epiphany she has had is genuine.
One of the articles I read said that she talked to her husband as well. I'm assuming her husband's reply was something to the effect of, 'Why would you turn down business?'

The question I had on this is, isn't it actually against the law? That's technically refusing people based on race. I thought for sure that was illegal.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 09:26 AM   #3
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,493
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
One of the articles I read said that she talked to her husband as well. I'm assuming her husband's reply was something to the effect of, 'Why would you turn down business?'

The question I had on this is, isn't it actually against the law? That's technically refusing people based on race. I thought for sure that was illegal.
Yes, and the christian defense bill was limited to being against the LGBT community and people committing adultery. It did not protect other forms of christian bigotry no matter how traditional.

I am not sure how well those bills in other states limit their targets to the LGBT community.

"The legislation, HB 1523, promises that the state government will not punish people who refuse to provide services to people because of a religious opposition to same-sex marriage, extramarital sex or transgender people."

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...-bill-into-law

Full bill

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/doc...9/HB1523SG.htm
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

Last edited by ponderingturtle; 4th September 2019 at 09:30 AM.
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 05:45 PM   #4
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,864
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
In post-racial America, one misinformed and confused business owner thinks that the Bible prohibits mixed marriages.

I'd be very surprised if any of these people had ever actually read a bible.

Quote:
She clearly got the idea from somewhere and I'd be shocked if that idea wasn't still being promoted in some churches.

It certainly is; although not always as blatantly as that. I have little doubt that her church was on the edge of it.

Quote:
Then again, Mississippi is a bulwark of intolerance religious freedom against the tide of equality godless communism.

When these "religious freedom" laws first started getting bandied about in various state legislatures, a number of us predicted that if they ever got upheld against LGBTQ people, that the very next target would be against interracial couples and minorities. We were generally shouted down by the usual suspects as "alarmist" and "exaggerating" the potential for discrimination involved in such legislation.

Lo and behold...

This one cowered in the face of the backlash, but the next one very likely won't. It's just a matter of time before we see the next Masterpiece Cakeshop emerge to test the legislation; and the now-hard-right-leaning Supreme Court to uphold it.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

Last edited by luchog; 4th September 2019 at 05:46 PM.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 09:00 PM   #5
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,757
Nobody ever cops to being a racist:
Quote:
She continued: "To all of those offended, hurt or felt condemn [sic] by my statement I truly apologise to you for my ignorance in not knowing the truth about this. My intent was never of racism, but to stand firm on what I 'assumed' was right concerning marriage."
But it's so clearly literally racist under any definition of the word. (I am aware that there is another thread in this forum debating the definition of racism called "What we mean when we talk about racism". You can't really get more racist than to be opposed to interracial marriage.) Sorry lady, but you did intend to be racist. I think you're only sorry about the reactions you provoked.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 12:27 AM   #6
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,363
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Nobody ever cops to being a racist:


But it's so clearly literally racist under any definition of the word. (I am aware that there is another thread in this forum debating the definition of racism called "What we mean when we talk about racism". You can't really get more racist than to be opposed to interracial marriage.) Sorry lady, but you did intend to be racist. I think you're only sorry about the reactions you provoked.
Yes
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 01:37 AM   #7
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,217
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
I'd be very surprised if any of these people had ever actually read a bible.




It certainly is; although not always as blatantly as that. I have little doubt that her church was on the edge of it.




When these "religious freedom" laws first started getting bandied about in various state legislatures, a number of us predicted that if they ever got upheld against LGBTQ people, that the very next target would be against interracial couples and minorities. We were generally shouted down by the usual suspects as "alarmist" and "exaggerating" the potential for discrimination involved in such legislation.

Lo and behold...



This one cowered in the face of the backlash, but the next one very likely won't. It's just a matter of time before we see the next Masterpiece Cakeshop emerge to test the legislation; and the now-hard-right-leaning Supreme Court to uphold it.
Think you might be reading a bit much into one incredibly dim religious person.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 01:53 AM   #8
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,877
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Nobody ever cops to being a racist:


But it's so clearly literally racist under any definition of the word. (I am aware that there is another thread in this forum debating the definition of racism called "What we mean when we talk about racism". You can't really get more racist than to be opposed to interracial marriage.) Sorry lady, but you did intend to be racist. I think you're only sorry about the reactions you provoked.
It's a bit of a toss up, but I think slavery was "more racist".
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 02:16 AM   #9
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 26,928
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Think you might be reading a bit much into one incredibly dim religious person.
The trouble is that it's always just one person who is apparently not representative of a larger group and yet people on the receiving end of this kind of discrimination say that reported issues are just the tip of the iceberg.

Perhaps it's because I'm left-leaning (by US standards) but I've been saying for years that if some civil rights can be sidelined because of (Christian) religious attitudes then all can be.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 04:24 AM   #10
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,232
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
It's a bit of a toss up, but I think slavery was "more racist".
I know we all like to split hairs to an nth degree here but slavery doesn't necessarily have to be racist. Of course the USA example was racist but throughout history people have been made slaves for many reasons regardless of race, usually after losing a war or a battle.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 04:59 AM   #11
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,896
What a strange, sad conclusion of pathetic racist reasoning that refuses to die. A hangover from the days of anti-miscegenation and segregation, where it is somehow not racist to insist that a barrier exist between the races, so long as each cordoned off racial group is treated "equally" (spoiler alert: they never were)

I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that this venue would happily wed a black couple as a white couple, as long as the races didn't mix. Wonder how they deal with racial "impurity".

Gotta dust off my ancestral tables to determine who's black, but at least we can get terms like "quadroon" back out of the attic. /s

That's something I often wonder about when it comes to religious accommodation in this country. The Founding fathers lived in an era of much stricter orthodoxy than today. Today's people are free to form church's as they please and hold whatever ideology they choose. There really isn't anything special about any given church espousing an opinion. If enough people want to church to take a position a certain way, a church will rise to meet the demand.

The biggest example of this is the split of the Baptist convention over the matter of slavery. But on any given matter of social importance that is controversial, there is nothing to stop a fracture that allows for religious "belief" on all sides of the issue.

Religious convictions are a dime a dozen these days, because there's nothing to prevent people from shopping around for the best fit.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 5th September 2019 at 05:04 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 05:30 AM   #12
Armitage72
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,180
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
She clearly got the idea from somewhere

My parents were both born in the 1940s, and I remember various comments from them over the years, often involving celebrities seen on TV.
Ted Danson and Whoopi Goldberg: "He's an attractive man. Why can't he date a white woman?"
A scene from "The Bodyguard": "I used to like Kevin Costner. Now I think he sucks. Lip-locking with a ****** on TV."
Tyne Daly and her husband: "She's nothing but a slut."

For a two-fer from my mother: "You used to have to worry about someone dating a different color. Now you have to worry about if they're dating a man or a woman too."

Last edited by Armitage72; 5th September 2019 at 05:36 AM.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 06:32 AM   #13
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,493
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I know we all like to split hairs to an nth degree here but slavery doesn't necessarily have to be racist. Of course the USA example was racist but throughout history people have been made slaves for many reasons regardless of race, usually after losing a war or a battle.
Also failure to pay debts is a perennial favorite.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 06:42 AM   #14
Finster
Graduate Poster
 
Finster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,027
In addition to what's already been mentioned - She doesn't seem to recognize that there is anything wrong with the concept of racial discrimination based on religion. She didn't do an about face because she realized using religion as an excuse to discriminate was wrong but because she was told she got the religious details wrong. If the Pastor had given her the thumbs up she'd still be OK with it. It's fine to say the Bible doesn't say that. It's more important to say that even if it did, that's not an acceptable reason, legally or morally, to discriminate. I don't see anything to indicate that either she or the Pastor get that.

There was a discussion a few years back on this board about someone (In Louisiana I think) who refused to performed interracial marriages for religious reasons. I don't remember all the details but I'm pretty sure it was someone in a public position - Judge or JP and plenty of people supported him on religious freedom grounds.
__________________
"You can't help respecting anybody who can spell TUESDAY, even if he doesn't spell it right; but spelling isn't everything. There are days when spelling Tuesday simply doesn't count." - WtP
Finster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 06:57 AM   #15
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,795
It's almost as if religion is just an excuse to justify whatever nonsensical opinions people hold, instead of being a system of rational explanations of how life, the universe, and everything works.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 07:00 AM   #16
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,633
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
One of the articles I read said that she talked to her husband as well. I'm assuming her husband's reply was something to the effect of, 'Why would you turn down business?'

The question I had on this is, isn't it actually against the law? That's technically refusing people based on race. I thought for sure that was illegal.
It is, but it is also against the law for governments to compel people to act against their religious beliefs. The question is how broadly or narrowly those two legal principles are interpreted and which one ends up on top. When laws conflict, its up to courts to unravel which one wins out.

For a fair number of laws, religious freedom take a precedence. For instance, Sikhs are not required to follow the same helmet laws as others in some jurisdiction because it would conflict with their religiously prescribed headwear.

For a while now, there's been a big push to establish that religious freedom should have precedence over laws that protect employment and customer practices, and the needle swings either way depending on the specifics and more importantly, the judges.

This administration has packed the courts with judges that will favor Christian rights to discriminate. If they get one more SC seat, it will be pretty much guaranteed that they'll be able to set a lasting precedent.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 07:01 AM   #17
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,493
Originally Posted by Finster View Post
In addition to what's already been mentioned - She doesn't seem to recognize that there is anything wrong with the concept of racial discrimination based on religion. She didn't do an about face because she realized using religion as an excuse to discriminate was wrong but because she was told she got the religious details wrong. If the Pastor had given her the thumbs up she'd still be OK with it. It's fine to say the Bible doesn't say that. It's more important to say that even if it did, that's not an acceptable reason, legally or morally, to discriminate. I don't see anything to indicate that either she or the Pastor get that.

There was a discussion a few years back on this board about someone (In Louisiana I think) who refused to performed interracial marriages for religious reasons. I don't remember all the details but I'm pretty sure it was someone in a public position - Judge or JP and plenty of people supported him on religious freedom grounds.
That would be this incident

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_L...riage_incident
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 07:05 AM   #18
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,493
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
It is, but it is also against the law for governments to compel people to act against their religious beliefs.
Not even remotely true. Look into the classic case of Newman vs Piggie Park on this issue, were religion was not found to be an acceptable reason to violate anti-discrimination laws. And of course that case that created the whole idea of religious freedom restoration from Employment Division v. Smith.

Religion is also not a good reason to say refuse to promote women over men despite it being clearly wrong in the bible. That is why the times when religion lets you get around a law are very specifically laid out and not any kind of general principle.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 07:20 AM   #19
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,932
And this is why is was never really about the ******* cakes people.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 07:37 AM   #20
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,795
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
And this is why is was never really about the ******* cakes people.
You make it sound like the bakery in that incident you're alluding to made erotic cakes. Which would be a much more interesting test case.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 07:51 AM   #21
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,932
The real irony is how harder this would be if racist would just learn to lie better.

You can (generally, dutiful acknowledgement of the mountain of legal nuance, exceptions, and on-off cases to appease the army of pedants) refuse service for literally no reason, you just can't openly admit you are doing it for bad reasons.

If these idiots didn't just blunder into announcing their own racism this would be a lot harder to deal with.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 09:19 AM   #22
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,388
Gallup has been tracking approval/disapproval of black-white marriage for 60 years:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/163697/...ks-whites.aspx

The trend looks like what you'd expect, but there's still a depressingly high number of people who disapprove of such marriages--11% as of 2013.

I'm surprised that you'd find those people in thriving metropolitan centers like Booneville, Mississippi, though.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 5th September 2019 at 09:21 AM. Reason: to sound less dumb
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2019, 01:00 AM   #23
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,757
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Gallup has been tracking approval/disapproval of black-white marriage for 60 years:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/163697/...ks-whites.aspx

The trend looks like what you'd expect, but there's still a depressingly high number of people who disapprove of such marriages--11% as of 2013.

I'm surprised that you'd find those people in thriving metropolitan centers like Booneville, Mississippi, though.
Actually, although I have seen that before, the thing that surprises me more is how little support there was for it in the recent past. It wasn't until the mid 90s that a majority approved. And in 1958 only 4 percent approved.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2019, 01:11 PM   #24
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 23,904
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Actually, although I have seen that before, the thing that surprises me more is how little support there was for it in the recent past. It wasn't until the mid 90s that a majority approved. And in 1958 only 4 percent approved.

It shouldn't. Have you not noticed the type of people who comprise the GOP?

Republicans solicit their support for a reason. There are a lot of them.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2019, 01:24 PM   #25
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,932
That's what I find odd about the gay marriage issue.

Inter-racial marriage was made legal a LONG time before "the majority was okay with."

The majority has been okay with gay marriage for a while now and we're still arguing about it. We should have had the gay marriage debate over and done with in the 70s or 80s, it should be history by now.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2019, 01:31 PM   #26
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,681
Originally Posted by Finster View Post
In addition to what's already been mentioned - She doesn't seem to recognize that there is anything wrong with the concept of racial discrimination based on religion. She didn't do an about face because she realized using religion as an excuse to discriminate was wrong but because she was told she got the religious details wrong. If the Pastor had given her the thumbs up she'd still be OK with it.
This is why I've always argued that there is no such thing as 'religious morals' - 'right' is just 100% obedience to revealed commands.

Abraham was 'right' when he was about to chop off Isaac's head. Then a few seconds later, he was 'right' for not chopping off Isaac's head. The lesson of the story is that the definition of 'right' in the Abrahamic faiths is blind obedience.

There's no complicated philosophy, just sophistry about what crime against humanity the Bible commands us to do this afternoon.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2019, 01:36 PM   #27
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,681
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
It is, but it is also against the law for governments to compel people to act against their religious beliefs. The question is how broadly or narrowly those two legal principles are interpreted and which one ends up on top. When laws conflict, its up to courts to unravel which one wins out.

For a fair number of laws, religious freedom take a precedence. For instance, Sikhs are not required to follow the same helmet laws as others in some jurisdiction because it would conflict with their religiously prescribed headwear.

For a while now, there's been a big push to establish that religious freedom should have precedence over laws that protect employment and customer practices, and the needle swings either way depending on the specifics and more importantly, the judges.

This administration has packed the courts with judges that will favor Christian rights to discriminate. If they get one more SC seat, it will be pretty much guaranteed that they'll be able to set a lasting precedent.
And possibly sweeping at that. And I'm convinced it will be Christian-specific. ie: Christians can discriminate with impunity, but discriminating against Christians will be illegal. There may be some fine tuning about what qualifies as Christian along the way.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2019, 02:38 PM   #28
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,681
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
And possibly sweeping at that. And I'm convinced it will be Christian-specific. ie: Christians can discriminate with impunity, but discriminating against Christians will be illegal. There may be some fine tuning about what qualifies as Christian along the way.
ETA: one of my dire predictions from Nov 2016 was that we might see the end of atheism being considered an equivalent to religion within this presidential term and possibly forever due to publication of a SC precedent.

It's definitely a threat to any 'religious freedom = license to discriminate' legislation. They're well aware that it would technically allow atheists to boot Christians from a store. So, it follows, that the treatment of atheism as a religious equivalent has to go.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by blutoski; 11th September 2019 at 02:40 PM.
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2019, 03:11 PM   #29
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,624
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
There's no complicated philosophy
The smarter ones pull out this as a philosophical justification:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presup...on_(philosophy)

It's a little complicated, in the sense that it's the Christian apologetics version of "brain in a vat" theory. lol
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2019, 04:06 PM   #30
deadrose
Illuminator
 
deadrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the wet side of the mountains
Posts: 3,182
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
We should have had the gay marriage debate over and done with in the 70s or 80s, it should be history by now.
It was definitely headed that way until AIDS cropped up and was demonized as a "Gay Plague" by the Right. I mean, for a while there, a lot of people thought it would be wise to put all HIV-positive people, if not all gay people, into internment camps. I still see my elderly relatives passing around urban legends about gas pump handles and HIV-covered needles.
deadrose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2019, 11:41 PM   #31
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 26,928
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
And possibly sweeping at that. And I'm convinced it will be Christian-specific. ie: Christians can discriminate with impunity, but discriminating against Christians will be illegal. There may be some fine tuning about what qualifies as Christian along the way.
Absolutely this !

The first time a Muslim organisation attempted to invoke the religious-intolerance - freedom legislation, a reason would be found to deny it because of *terrorism* or something which would leave civil rights organisations in a bit of a pickle. Do they accept the ruling, which would stop the primary discrimination, or do they fight the ruling so as to protect Muslims' right to discriminate ?
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2019, 03:26 AM   #32
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,493
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Absolutely this !

The first time a Muslim organisation attempted to invoke the religious-intolerance - freedom legislation, a reason would be found to deny it because of *terrorism* or something which would leave civil rights organisations in a bit of a pickle. Do they accept the ruling, which would stop the primary discrimination, or do they fight the ruling so as to protect Muslims' right to discriminate ?
Already happened remember the outrage when legislators found out their school choice funding for religious schools in some southern state could be used by muslims?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2019, 03:30 AM   #33
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,521
It's too bad the Bible never said anything about Mexicans ...
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2019, 06:39 AM   #34
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,864
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Absolutely this !

The first time a Muslim organisation attempted to invoke the religious-intolerance - freedom legislation, a reason would be found to deny it because of *terrorism* or something which would leave civil rights organisations in a bit of a pickle. Do they accept the ruling, which would stop the primary discrimination, or do they fight the ruling so as to protect Muslims' right to discriminate ?
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Already happened remember the outrage when legislators found out their school choice funding for religious schools in some southern state could be used by muslims?

There was a huge kerfuffle here a few years back. Muslim taxi drivers were refusing to carry passengers who possessed alcohol, or who had clearly been drinking alcohol, claiming "religious freedom". The state threatened to pull their medallions and shut them down unless they carried all passengers.

So yeah, "religious freedom" is nothing but a license to discriminate against anyone who isn't a cismale straight white "Christians".
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2019, 09:33 AM   #35
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,633
Originally Posted by dann View Post
It's too bad the Bible never said anything about Mexicans ...
What are you talking about? There's some dude named Jesus all over the NT. Have you ever met someone named Jesus who wasn't Mexican?
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2019, 10:56 AM   #36
autumn1971
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,842
Originally Posted by dann View Post
It's too bad the Bible never said anything about Mexicans ...
Mormons have all the darkies covered.
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2019, 12:32 AM   #37
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,757
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
What are you talking about? There's some dude named Jesus all over the NT. Have you ever met someone named Jesus who wasn't Mexican?

This made me wonder though: Do we even pronounce "Jesus" the right way in America? Would the people who lived in that part of the world around the time of Jesus have pronounced his name like we do or like Mexicans do? Or perhaps different from either of them?
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2019, 12:41 AM   #38
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,624
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post

This made me wonder though: Do we even pronounce "Jesus" the right way in America? Would the people who lived in that part of the world around the time of Jesus have pronounced his name like we do or like Mexicans do? Or perhaps different from either of them?
Certainly different from either, and most likely something close to this, as far as I know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2019, 02:36 AM   #39
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,757
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Certainly different from either, and most likely something close to this, as far as I know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu
Thanks.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:40 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.