Absolutely.
Would you allow government to decide who is bigoted, & then curtail their legal rights?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Chick-fil-A to be denied zoning permit in Chicago
- Thread starter Apex
- Start date
Would you allow government to decide who is bigoted, & then curtail their legal rights?
Perhaps. There aren't many choices that only have implications in one way. Things are usually a balance: any option has positives and negatives associated with it, so we have to choose the best option out of the ones available.
Last edited:
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Yes.
They have the exact same rights YOU have.
With the exact same restrictions, the exact same liberties.
Are you going to answer the question:
So merely disagreement another persons opinion is enough to remove the rights from the person whose opinion you disagree with?
Last edited by a moderator:
Chisti
Active Member
Do you agree that homophobes are bigots?
No. A clinical diagnosis of a "phobia" (ie, an irrational fear) of homosexuals does not mean that the sufferer meets the definition of "bigotry".
From dictionary.com.....
"stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."
It's certainly possible that a homophobe could be bigoted.
Looking at this definition, "bigotry" would apply not just to those who are intolerant of homosexuals, but also intolerant of other groups, eg, capitalists, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Xians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, bankers, trailer trash, rednecks, Newfies. By your reasoning, it would seem that harsh & illegal measures should be taken against most people in the country. You wouldn't be exempt here, bub.
I answered your question.
How's 'bout mine? Here it is again.....
Last edited:
Do you agree that homophobes are people?
What I'd found recently, at least on FB wall posts, are that many folks are adamant about freedom for Chick-fil-A and their public stance, and that Chicago aldermen and Boston mayors and governments in general should not stomp on the company's freedom to conduct business however they want with whomever they want and saying whatever they want.
And these are the same people who want the government to prohibit same sex marriage.....or at least are not nearly as vocal as they are with giving Chick-fil-A freedom.
"It's a free country! They shouldn't be penalized by the radical left wing maniacs and get all this hatred for standing up for traditional marriage!"
"Okay. How about Chick-fil-A be given their freedom, and gays and lesbians be given the right to be issued a same sex marriage with ALL of the same protections and privileges as straights do?"
"Hey now.....that's different. What's next? People marrying their dogs or cats? The Bible doesn't support gays getting married. I don't care if you think it doesn't hurt anybody.....dog fighting doesn't hurt anybody either. STOP SHOVING YOUR GAY AGENDA DOWN OUR THROATS!"
Go figure.
And these are the same people who want the government to prohibit same sex marriage.....or at least are not nearly as vocal as they are with giving Chick-fil-A freedom.
"It's a free country! They shouldn't be penalized by the radical left wing maniacs and get all this hatred for standing up for traditional marriage!"
"Okay. How about Chick-fil-A be given their freedom, and gays and lesbians be given the right to be issued a same sex marriage with ALL of the same protections and privileges as straights do?"
"Hey now.....that's different. What's next? People marrying their dogs or cats? The Bible doesn't support gays getting married. I don't care if you think it doesn't hurt anybody.....dog fighting doesn't hurt anybody either. STOP SHOVING YOUR GAY AGENDA DOWN OUR THROATS!"
Go figure.
You are probably right that if left to themselves the masses are never going to choose progressive ideals. As I understand them, progressive ideals involve the use of government for establishing and promoting social and economic ideals. I think that the masses will promote ideals that they personally find to work for them -- rather than those that some top level group believes they ought to believe. Pressure and force used by one group to subdue another group does not necessarily lead to great results.
If you are interested here is a link to a video of Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell discussing the issue of the use of government to enforce social and economic ideals. [youtube]QvC12foKLEk[/youtube]
Williams With Sowell - Progressive Racism - YouTube
As I see it, the Jim Crow laws were passed according to the philosophy behind progressive ideals -- where the guys at the top believed that society was better off if they implemented and enforced some social and economic planning. They seemed to think they could provide the best social and economic outcome if the races became and remained segregated. They were doing it according to their own ideals of what was better for society. (It was also handy for limiting competition from other businesses that did not think like the group in power thought.)
In the 15 years or so after the Civil War everybody was NOT segregating in their businesses. They were simply conducting business. Some businesses refused service or segregated, but not all. If they had been, there would have been no need for laws to be passed to force them to do it. There were social and economic reasons for some people wanting to do it, and wanting to force others to do it -- in support of what was their ideal of what was right -- so everyone ought to be forced to do it. It became a highly pressurized situation in which it was dangerous for anyone to go against it.
It took those masses that did not believe that the guys at the top were right in doing wrong. The Civil Rights movement was a beautiful expression of humanity peacefully saying "No" to something so wrong -- something that had been legislated from the really smart people above.
(I want everyone to be ok, too. I want people to be left free to do as they please, as long as they don't hurt anyone else. I think we just really disagree on how to get there.)
LeftishBritInPA
Member
What I'd found recently, at least on FB wall posts, are that many folks are adamant about freedom for Chick-fil-A and their public stance, and that Chicago aldermen and Boston mayors and governments in general should not stomp on the company's freedom to conduct business however they want with whomever they want and saying whatever they want.
And these are the same people who want the government to prohibit same sex marriage.....or at least are not nearly as vocal as they are with giving Chick-fil-A freedom.
"It's a free country! They shouldn't be penalized by the radical left wing maniacs and get all this hatred for standing up for traditional marriage!"
"Okay. How about Chick-fil-A be given their freedom, and gays and lesbians be given the right to be issued a same sex marriage with ALL of the same protections and privileges as straights do?"
"Hey now.....that's different. What's next? People marrying their dogs or cats? The Bible doesn't support gays getting married. I don't care if you think it doesn't hurt anybody.....dog fighting doesn't hurt anybody either. STOP SHOVING YOUR GAY AGENDA DOWN OUR THROATS!"
Freedom is not free. In a society the rights of one person end where another's begin, so some rights and freedoms need to be sacrificed. You can't run a red light when you feel like it because your right to get to work on time is less important than another person's right to life. Same thing goes here.
Homophobia is not a "freedom" and is in fact contrary to the rules of civilized society.
Chisti
Active Member
Checkmate.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
Is religophobia also not a "freedom"? Or pretty much any _______phobia?
So what would you do....have gov't diagnose homophobes & take away some rights?
Which ones?
What other types of thought or speech would you make illegal?
Perhaps you LDS types should be rounded up & put into special camps so that
you won't oppress the progressive folks with all your wanton free speech, eh?
(How soon will Godwin's Law manifest itself in this thread?)
Homophobia is a state of mind. It, in and of itself, is not an action.
You can regulate, limit, or otherwise curtail an action. To attempt to curtail a state of mind -- or thought -- is to stifle what YOU are afraid of and/or hate. There is very little intellligence in that.
People have a right to believe and to support what they believe to be true and correct. That is good. They do not have the right to impose their will/opinion with force upon another. I do not have to support a person's belief that homosexual marriage is wrong to support their right to support such legislation.
I believe that I have the right to support what I really believe to be right. I do not believe that another has the right to deny me the right to do so -- simply because they feel positive that they are so right in their position that I am wrong.
I can believe that stopping at a red is wrong all I want. I can also support legistation to change the rules all I want. What I cannot do is make my own rules of the road without being held accountable for those actions.
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
As we've already explained, it's not an issue of speech but rather political contributions.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
A pigeon ******** on the chessboard does not a checkmate make.
Hah! It's not the issue...it's one issue.