4 ms·

>Tolerating a homosexual in their presence goes against their beliefs. But nobody has said that evangelical Christians have to tolerate the presence of homosex

>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.
    - CocaKoala 11y ago
      A ban you choose to participate in (since it by definition only affects people who choose to be devout Christians to the extent that even interacting with homosexuals is forbidden, a philosophy which I'm not at all confident is in the bible, who also choose to own a business devoted to serving the public) seems more tolerant than a ban which is forced upon you (since nobody chooses their sexual orientation). Do you disagree? I'm not arguing that it's completely tolerant, but unfortunately we have a case where one person completely refuses to tolerate the mere existence of another so I think it's clear that one hundred percent toleration is off the table. Since one person is choosing to be intolerant and the other isn't, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to place restrictions on the person making the choice; if they feel that the inconveniences are too much, they're obviously welcome to rethink their choice. You can't really ask that of a gay person.
- jtuente 11y ago
  >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. No, it's a government-enforced liability, it has nothing to do with capitalism (if anything, it's borderline anti-capitalistic). The fact that the second store serving the disenfranchised is substandard or non-competitive has nothing to do with the fact that the original store would not serve some population. A third store could also service those disenfranchised by the first and unsatisfied by the second. That's capitalism. Now if there's some kind of regulation limiting the number of stores, that's anti-capitalistic government action (a government-sanctioned oligopoly of sorts). Let's say the baker decides to close their business rather than be forced to serve some group of people. Is that baker still obligated to make that cake? Why? What if the baker moves their business to a region that allows personal biases, is the baker obligated to bake that cake? Your example is more akin to stores requiring patrons to wear shirt and shoes to receive service. Potential customers are being discriminated against here for an arbitrary reason based on some ideal of what is considered public decency. Do you think that a Muslim store requiring female customers to wear a burqa is discriminatory, or are they practicing freedom of religion? Does the government forcing the Muslim store to allow female customers without a burqa violate the first amendment?
- humanrebar 11y ago
  > there has been a lot of controversy over, for example, a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couples wedding. A better example is a wedding planner or a marriage counselor. At some point, the freedom of speech and freedom of association comes into play and cannot be disentangled from the services provided. Saying a marriage counselor has to help save marriages or close up shop is to ban people with certain beliefs from certain occupations.
Nadya 11y ago
Tolerance of everything is impossible. You have to be intolerant of certain beliefs or practices in order to tolerate others. What you choose to tolerate come down to little more then your personal beliefs. Saying something is intolerant is ultimately an empty statement. >Speaking out against gay-marriage is [against my] beliefs >Promoting gay marriage is intolerant [to Christian beliefs] Allowing gays to marry - regardless if Christians have to be around these gays or not is against their beliefs. Not being respective of their beliefs is intolerant (this is a must, and intolerance is not necessarily a bad thing any more than tolerance is a good thing) I tried to be as succinct as possible. E: I feel this is a necessary disclaimer after re-reading this response, lest I offend any Christians who are tolerant of homosexuals... Not all Christians...there are too many branches and sub-branches with different opinions, I use it as a blanket term for the specific (and known to exist) branches that are intolerant of homosexuals and hope it is taken as such for the sake of communication.

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.
  - CocaKoala 11y ago
    A ban you choose to participate in (since it by definition only affects people who choose to be devout Christians to the extent that even interacting with homosexuals is forbidden, a philosophy which I'm not at all confident is in the bible, who also choose to own a business devoted to serving the public) seems more tolerant than a ban which is forced upon you (since nobody chooses their sexual orientation). Do you disagree? I'm not arguing that it's completely tolerant, but unfortunately we have a case where one person completely refuses to tolerate the mere existence of another so I think it's clear that one hundred percent toleration is off the table. Since one person is choosing to be intolerant and the other isn't, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to place restrictions on the person making the choice; if they feel that the inconveniences are too much, they're obviously welcome to rethink their choice. You can't really ask that of a gay person.
jtuente 11y ago
>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. No, it's a government-enforced liability, it has nothing to do with capitalism (if anything, it's borderline anti-capitalistic). The fact that the second store serving the disenfranchised is substandard or non-competitive has nothing to do with the fact that the original store would not serve some population. A third store could also service those disenfranchised by the first and unsatisfied by the second. That's capitalism. Now if there's some kind of regulation limiting the number of stores, that's anti-capitalistic government action (a government-sanctioned oligopoly of sorts). Let's say the baker decides to close their business rather than be forced to serve some group of people. Is that baker still obligated to make that cake? Why? What if the baker moves their business to a region that allows personal biases, is the baker obligated to bake that cake? Your example is more akin to stores requiring patrons to wear shirt and shoes to receive service. Potential customers are being discriminated against here for an arbitrary reason based on some ideal of what is considered public decency. Do you think that a Muslim store requiring female customers to wear a burqa is discriminatory, or are they practicing freedom of religion? Does the government forcing the Muslim store to allow female customers without a burqa violate the first amendment?
humanrebar 11y ago
> there has been a lot of controversy over, for example, a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couples wedding. A better example is a wedding planner or a marriage counselor. At some point, the freedom of speech and freedom of association comes into play and cannot be disentangled from the services provided. Saying a marriage counselor has to help save marriages or close up shop is to ban people with certain beliefs from certain occupations.

Nadya 11y ago

Tolerance of everything is impossible. You have to be intolerant of certain beliefs or practices in order to tolerate others. What you choose to tolerate come down to little more then your personal beliefs. Saying something is intolerant is ultimately an empty statement. >Speaking out against gay-marriage is [against my] beliefs >Promoting gay marriage is intolerant [to Christian beliefs] Allowing gays to marry - regardless if Christians have to be around these gays or not is against their beliefs. Not being respective of their beliefs is intolerant (this is a must, and intolerance is not necessarily a bad thing any more than tolerance is a good thing) I tried to be as succinct as possible. E: I feel this is a necessary disclaimer after re-reading this response, lest I offend any Christians who are tolerant of homosexuals... Not all Christians...there are too many branches and sub-branches with different opinions, I use it as a blanket term for the specific (and known to exist) branches that are intolerant of homosexuals and hope it is taken as such for the sake of communication.