Page 1 of 17 1234567891011121314151617 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 246

Thread: Social Shenanigans (Second Verse)

  1. #1
    56% of an excuse nail bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Province
    Kekistan
    Oratio
    29,839

    Ignore User

    Social Shenanigans (Second Verse)

    Since kirinke killed far more real threads than she understands... I'm starting this one back up again...


    Two Female Christian Artists Could Be JAILED For Not Creating Art For Same-Sex Weddings

    Should artists be allowed to turn away customers if the art work goes against their beliefs?
    I wouldn't even smirk at you.

 

  • #2
    self admitted prolifer kirinke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    To the left of reality. Behind reason. Right next to the backside of beyond.
    Oratio
    7,503

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    Since kirinke killed far more real threads than she understands... I'm starting this one back up again...


    Two Female Christian Artists Could Be JAILED For Not Creating Art For Same-Sex Weddings

    Should artists be allowed to turn away customers if the art work goes against their beliefs?
    No. If they are a business, then they have to serve everyone equally under the law. Just because you don't like somebody, doesn't mean you get to discriminate against them and hide behind the bible to get away with it.


    Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against those who do not share them.

    A simple solution to the problem is a sign somewhere in the shop saying something along the lines of: I serve everyone equally. Just because you're a customer, does not mean I share your beliefs.

    And yes, that applies equally to serving neo-nazis, devil worshippers, scientologists, republicans, Hell's Angels or the French.

    (And I'm sorry about the thread nuke. Gah.)
    Last edited by kirinke; December 26th, 2018 at 04:37 PM.
    Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

    I is before E except after C, then it's chaos man, mass chaos! Letters coming together into words, but then you go English and they put U's in places that just shouldn't go there... AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

    My sanity left town along time ago and didn't leave a forwarding address. It's not missed.

  • #3
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,083

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by kirinke View Post
    No. If they are a business, then they have to serve everyone equally under the law. Just because you don't like somebody, doesn't mean you get to discriminate against them and hide behind the bible to get away with it.


    Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against those who do not share them.

    A simple solution to the problem is a sign somewhere in the shop saying something along the lines of: I serve everyone equally. Just because you're a customer, does not mean I share your beliefs.

    And yes, that applies equally to serving neo-nazis, devil worshippers, scientologists, republicans, Hell's Angels or the French.

    (And I'm sorry about the thread nuke. Gah.)
    No, they don't. There's a difference between saying you can't refuse business based solely on a protected class and being forced to create speech because a member of a protected class wants you to, even if you normally sell your speech. The commision was refused because of the content, not the purchaser. They can't refuse to sell to you because you're black, for instance, but they aren't required to paint you an orgy picture even if you're black.

    This gets very clear if the request is more broadly offensive -- can you go to any artist and demand they come and do a still life of your farm-themed orgy? Clearly not. Well, that line is with the artist as to what they're okay with making into art, and doesn't interact with discrimination laws. A racist artist can legally refuse to paint people of color, but cannot refuse business to a poc if they want to buy some art depicting people of pallor just because the're a poc.

    Did I do the PC right?
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #4
    self admitted prolifer kirinke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    To the left of reality. Behind reason. Right next to the backside of beyond.
    Oratio
    7,503

    Ignore User
    The petition added, “Their Christian beliefs forbid them from creating ‘custom artwork that conveys messages condoning, supporting, or participating in activities or ideas that violate their religious beliefs. For example, they cannot create artwork expressing messages that ‘contradict biblical truth, demean others, endorse racism, [or] incite violence.’”
    Biblical truth is very subjective and has been used to justify the worst behavior. Including: Slavery, not serving mixed race couples, not serving African Americans or denying contraception to women.

    Eventually, the courts have ruled against the nimrods, like they will in this case.

    So, as for your argument, I doubt the gay couple wanted them to paint an orgy. They probably just wanted them to paint two women (or two men) holding hands and kissing.

    So yeah, I don't buy those but it 'goes against my religious beliefs' arguments when those people are using that to justify discrimination or denying another person their lawfully given rights.

    It happens every time all other attempts to discriminate against a particular group of people has failed. The people who hate that particular group will always trot out the 'it goes against my religious beliefs' as a last ditch effort to excuse their bigotry.

    I personally find it repugnant that they are using my religion to justify their bigotry. They are in no way acting like a Christian when they do that that.
    Last edited by kirinke; December 26th, 2018 at 06:12 PM.
    Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

    I is before E except after C, then it's chaos man, mass chaos! Letters coming together into words, but then you go English and they put U's in places that just shouldn't go there... AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

    My sanity left town along time ago and didn't leave a forwarding address. It's not missed.

  • #5
    Since when have fascists and their sympathizers used tge words "protected class" to designated oppressed minorities?
    Signature too big and pornographic. Next offense will be a ban.

  • #6
    self admitted prolifer kirinke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    To the left of reality. Behind reason. Right next to the backside of beyond.
    Oratio
    7,503

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Yablo View Post
    Since when have fascists and their sympathizers used tge words "protected class" to designated oppressed minorities?
    Lol. Never I think.
    Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

    I is before E except after C, then it's chaos man, mass chaos! Letters coming together into words, but then you go English and they put U's in places that just shouldn't go there... AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

    My sanity left town along time ago and didn't leave a forwarding address. It's not missed.

  • #7
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,083

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by kirinke View Post
    Biblical truth is very subjective and has been used to justify the worst behavior. Including: Slavery, not serving mixed race couples, not serving African Americans or denying contraception to women.

    Eventually, the courts have ruled against the nimrods, like they will in this case.

    So, as for your argument, I doubt the gay couple wanted them to paint an orgy. They probably just wanted them to paint two women (or two men) holding hands and kissing.

    So yeah, I don't buy those but it 'goes against my religious beliefs' arguments when those people are using that to justify discrimination or denying another person their lawfully given rights.

    It happens every time all other attempts to discriminate against a particular group of people has failed. The people who hate that particular group will always trot out the 'it goes against my religious beliefs' as a last ditch effort to excuse their bigotry.

    I personally find it repugnant that they are using my religion to justify their bigotry. They are in no way acting like a Christian when they do that that.
    Okay, would it be okay for a Satanist to force a comission of the devil eating children? Why or why not? Work backwards.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #8
    self admitted prolifer kirinke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    To the left of reality. Behind reason. Right next to the backside of beyond.
    Oratio
    7,503

    Ignore User
    Not that they would, but hey, if I'm running a business open to the public, I will treat everyone equally. The sign on the wall says it for me.

    Just because I serve you, doesn't mean I agree with your beliefs.

    I think alot of Christians fail to understand the 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' clause in the bible.

    In that case, as I would not like to be discriminated against, then I won't discriminate against others. It's pretty cut and dried. If they claim to follow the teachings of Jesus and they discriminate against somebody, they are not holding true to the teachings of Jesus.

    The bible says alot of things that nobody pays attention to anymore. Why should they suddenly think discriminating against gays is okay because it says so in the bible?
    Last edited by kirinke; December 26th, 2018 at 09:36 PM.
    Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

    I is before E except after C, then it's chaos man, mass chaos! Letters coming together into words, but then you go English and they put U's in places that just shouldn't go there... AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

    My sanity left town along time ago and didn't leave a forwarding address. It's not missed.

  • #9
    56% of an excuse nail bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Province
    Kekistan
    Oratio
    29,839

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by kirinke View Post
    Not that they would, but hey, if I'm running a business open to the public, I will treat everyone equally. The sign on the wall says it for me.

    Just because I serve you, doesn't mean I agree with your beliefs.
    So, if you were an artist you'd happily draw pedophilia, cannibalism, and rape? Okay then.
    I wouldn't even smirk at you.

  • #10
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,083

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    So, if you were an artist you'd happily draw pedophilia, cannibalism, and rape? Okay then.
    And insist, under penalty of jail, that others must as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #11
    self admitted prolifer kirinke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    To the left of reality. Behind reason. Right next to the backside of beyond.
    Oratio
    7,503

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    So, if you were an artist you'd happily draw pedophilia, cannibalism, and rape? Okay then.
    Nice try at strawmen arguments. Also, not falling for it.
    The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

    Person 1 asserts proposition X.
    Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

    This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

    For example:

    Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[3]
    Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[2]
    Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
    Exaggerating (sometimes grossly exaggerating) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.
    So let's try this.
    Suppose it was you wanting some stuff done for a wedding and your spouse is a different race then you. The artist then says it's against their religious beliefs to serve you because you are marrying a mixed race person. Would you be okay with it? This has happened in the past.
    Last edited by kirinke; December 26th, 2018 at 10:40 PM.
    Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

    I is before E except after C, then it's chaos man, mass chaos! Letters coming together into words, but then you go English and they put U's in places that just shouldn't go there... AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

    My sanity left town along time ago and didn't leave a forwarding address. It's not missed.

  • #12
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,083

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by kirinke View Post
    Nice try at strawmen arguments. Also, not falling for it.

    The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

    Person 1 asserts proposition X.
    Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

    This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

    For example:

    Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[3]
    Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[2]
    Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
    Exaggerating (sometimes grossly exaggerating) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.
    So, no, you would not create art of pedophilia, rape, and murder. Good. What's different, here? One could argue that pedophilia art is child porn, so let's dispense that one under "it would be illegal." But, depictions of rape and murder are not illegal. Are you or are you not okay requiring artists to draw these under the law?

    If not, then we've established at least some speech cannot be compelled by any customer. The argument then becomes defining the line. The 1st Amendment and the established caselaw says the state cannot compel speech, even commercial speech. IE, the law cannot make you say something. This has been upheld many times. It was upheld recently in Masterpiece Bakery. This argument is that the artist cannot refuse to serve a gay couple because they are gay, but is under no requirement to create art they disagree with. So, yes, they must sell art to gay people, but it doesn't have to be art that celebrates gay people. The key here isn't not serving protected classes, but in not having to voice agreement with things you don't agree with. And, making art is speech, making art you don't agree with is being forced to say things you don't want to say. To tie back into the above, if you feel you're justified not producing rape art, then you already agree with this statement, you're just ignoring that others might have a different line than you do. If you get to use the law to enforce your preferences on others, then others can use the law to force a set of preferences you don't like on you, like forcing you to create rape art. This isn't a slippery slope argument or a strawman, it's the fundamental reasoning behind a huge swath of 1A caselaw. The state can't make you say things because then there's no real limit on what the state can make you say. And, if the state can compel speech, you don't have freedom of speech.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #13
    self admitted prolifer kirinke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    To the left of reality. Behind reason. Right next to the backside of beyond.
    Oratio
    7,503

    Ignore User
    What is art? That's subjective as well. So no, I don't believe they are discriminating because of biblical beliefs, but out of bigotry. In that case, I don't agree with them. Because Mathew 7:12 overrides whatever verse they can trot out to justify themselves.
    Last edited by kirinke; December 26th, 2018 at 10:57 PM.
    Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

    I is before E except after C, then it's chaos man, mass chaos! Letters coming together into words, but then you go English and they put U's in places that just shouldn't go there... AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

    My sanity left town along time ago and didn't leave a forwarding address. It's not missed.

  • #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    Okay, would it be okay for a Satanist to force a comission of the devil eating children? Why or why not? Work backwards.
    Homosexuality is morally the same as Satan eating children for you? How not surprising. Please, keep reinforcing the image we have of you.
    Signature too big and pornographic. Next offense will be a ban.

  • #15
    Quote Originally Posted by kirinke View Post
    Lol. Never I think.
    Ovi just used it in post #3.
    Signature too big and pornographic. Next offense will be a ban.

  • Page 1 of 17 1234567891011121314151617 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •