5 ms·

>For example - a Jew's right to avoid pork and shellfish is respected but the right for an evangelical Christian to avoid people they see as ultimate sinners wh

>For example - a Jew's right to avoid pork and shellfish is respected but the right for an evangelical Christian to avoid people they see as ultimate sinners who could soil them and send them to hell for eternity is completely disregarded and not tolerated at all. The right for evangelican Christians to avoid people they see as sinners is respected just as much as the right for Jews to avoid pork and shellfish is; nobody forces a Jewish person to eat pork, and nobody forces evangelical Christians to interact with sinners. The right of evangelical Christians to enforce their beliefs on others, i.e. by making it illegal for homosexuals to get married, is a very different right, and you haven't made an argument for why that right should be respected at all; should Jews be allowed to shut down a restaurant just because that restaurant happens to serve pork or shellfish?

Nadya 11y ago
>you haven't made an argument for why that right should be respected at all That's because I don't think it should be. You're entirely missing the point of my argument and why arguing from morals and right/wrong is completely pointless. You're arguing about enforcing beliefs - I'm arguing about what is and isn't immoral and how people treat behaviors they deem to be moral or immoral. It's only immoral when you don't agree with it. If you thought homosexuality was a sin and marriage should be banned defending the cause is moral. Enforcing beliefs would be impossible because everyone has their own beliefs and there would be contradictions everywhere. I'll use a different example, since people are missing my point entirely. A despised terrorist to one group of people is a glorified hero to another. The only difference is which group you belong to. It's all a matter of perspective and shouting down about how immoral or intolerant they are being will change nothing from their perspective because you are in the wrong. Not them. Tolerating a homosexual in their presence goes against their beliefs. It's a sin to tolerate such a presence. You are asking them to sin and go to hell. I can easily understand why they might not so willing to sin and go to hell, no matter how politely you ask.
- CocaKoala 11y ago
  >Tolerating a homosexual in their presence goes against their beliefs. But nobody has said that evangelical Christians have to tolerate the presence of homosexuals? Unless there's been a movement to ban homosexuals from doing things like being in public spaces; I'm not currently aware of any such movement, although I admit that I'm not really up on such things. If somebody doesn't want to be in the presence of a homosexual, then they can arrange their life in such a way that they never need to do that, and I don't think anybody is really going to force them to do something like travel to San Francisco to watch a pride parade. edit: I guess I'm not sure what your argument is, because you say that you're not talking about enforcing beliefs and then you say that evangelical christians are forced to interact with homosexuals.
  - com2kid 11y ago
    > But nobody has said that evangelical Christians have to tolerate the presence of homosexuals? Laws exist saying that public businesses must serve all customers without discrimination, there has been a lot of controversy over, for example, a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couples wedding. This is an example where government enforced capitalism has been enshrined in law and it is a good thing. Discrimination distorts the market in horrible ways, American history has plenty of examples of stores discriminating meaning other stores pop up providing substandard non-competitive service to a population.
    - CocaKoala 11y ago
      Sure, but that's still a choice that evangelical christians are making; they choose to run a public business, which means they have to interact with the public. If they're not comfortable doing that, then they don't have to run a public business.
      - humanrebar 11y ago
        > If they're not comfortable doing that, then they don't have to run a public business. On the other hand, you're implicitly banning a certain class of people from owning a certain kind of business. I'm not sure why that's the most tolerant option.

Nadya 11y ago

>you haven't made an argument for why that right should be respected at all That's because I don't think it should be. You're entirely missing the point of my argument and why arguing from morals and right/wrong is completely pointless. You're arguing about enforcing beliefs - I'm arguing about what is and isn't immoral and how people treat behaviors they deem to be moral or immoral. It's only immoral when you don't agree with it. If you thought homosexuality was a sin and marriage should be banned defending the cause is moral. Enforcing beliefs would be impossible because everyone has their own beliefs and there would be contradictions everywhere. I'll use a different example, since people are missing my point entirely. A despised terrorist to one group of people is a glorified hero to another. The only difference is which group you belong to. It's all a matter of perspective and shouting down about how immoral or intolerant they are being will change nothing from their perspective because you are in the wrong. Not them. Tolerating a homosexual in their presence goes against their beliefs. It's a sin to tolerate such a presence. You are asking them to sin and go to hell. I can easily understand why they might not so willing to sin and go to hell, no matter how politely you ask.

CocaKoala 11y ago
>Tolerating a homosexual in their presence goes against their beliefs. But nobody has said that evangelical Christians have to tolerate the presence of homosexuals? Unless there's been a movement to ban homosexuals from doing things like being in public spaces; I'm not currently aware of any such movement, although I admit that I'm not really up on such things. If somebody doesn't want to be in the presence of a homosexual, then they can arrange their life in such a way that they never need to do that, and I don't think anybody is really going to force them to do something like travel to San Francisco to watch a pride parade. edit: I guess I'm not sure what your argument is, because you say that you're not talking about enforcing beliefs and then you say that evangelical christians are forced to interact with homosexuals.
- com2kid 11y ago
  > But nobody has said that evangelical Christians have to tolerate the presence of homosexuals? Laws exist saying that public businesses must serve all customers without discrimination, there has been a lot of controversy over, for example, a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couples wedding. This is an example where government enforced capitalism has been enshrined in law and it is a good thing. Discrimination distorts the market in horrible ways, American history has plenty of examples of stores discriminating meaning other stores pop up providing substandard non-competitive service to a population.
  - CocaKoala 11y ago
    Sure, but that's still a choice that evangelical christians are making; they choose to run a public business, which means they have to interact with the public. If they're not comfortable doing that, then they don't have to run a public business.
    - humanrebar 11y ago
      > If they're not comfortable doing that, then they don't have to run a public business. On the other hand, you're implicitly banning a certain class of people from owning a certain kind of business. I'm not sure why that's the most tolerant option.