3 ms·
> Clearly, this gay person is choosing to discriminate based on religion. Not really. It's a subtle difference, but it's more like discriminating against someo
by ekanes 16y ago
> Clearly, this gay person is choosing to discriminate based on religion.
Not really. It's a subtle difference, but it's more like discriminating against someone for being a jerk. Or perhaps insensitive.
a) If the person wasn't religious but said the same thing, one might discriminate the same way. (Therefore showing it wasn't because of religion)
b) Alternatively, if someone was religious, but wasn't judgmental, presumably you wouldn't have a problem with them.
- nika 16y agoYou're right. What I should have said is, this is a situation where the discrimination could be prosecuted for being discrimination based on religion which is currently against the law. Of course in some cases where the discrimination is religiously based it may be hard to prove and in other cases, people could lose even when they weren't really discriminating on that basis. In a way, making discrimination illegal is a form of a thought crime, as it requires determination of the thinking process on the person charged with discrimination.
- ekanes 16y ago> In a way, making discrimination illegal is a form of a thought crime, as it requires determination of the thinking process on the person charged with discrimination. I never thought of it that way. It's about your biases but it requires some action to mean anything. (In the same sense as murder being technically a thought crime, acted out No action no crime.