3 ms·
I believe the standard retort to this is that religion is a choice, whereas sexual orientation is not. Which is understandable as far as it goes, except it is
by daxorid 8y ago
I believe the standard retort to this is that religion is a choice, whereas sexual orientation is not.
Which is understandable as far as it goes, except it is the sole exception to the accepted blank slate belief of sociologists everywhere. We carve out a very visible exception in this domain.
Zeitgeist: Our behaviors are all socialized into us, with the sole exception of sexual orientation. Contrast with the perspective that one's religion is merely a choice, such that after being socialized into a belief system for one's most formative eighteen years, one can simply toss it away thereafter.
- TangoTrotFox 8y agoAbsolutely, but the issue here is that religion is a protected class under the law. The key point here is that a 'creator' generally cannot be forced to use their talents to create something that they do not want to. However can people 'override' this and force people to create things they normally would not, if the thing being requested falls under the domain of a protected class? For instance 'satanists' are now requesting the same baker create cakes celebrating the birth of Lucifer with upside down crosses and associated imagery, arguing that it's an expression of their religion, implicitly with threats to sue if the baker doesn't abide.