5 ms·

Doing business with someone vs. promoting their ideology and helping them engage in sin are two very different issues. She can sell them a neutral website that

• elil17 5y ago
  In a free society, you don’t get to try to make your extremist religious beliefs into law. Look at the theocracies of the world - they are not good places to live for most people.
  • AussieWog93 5y ago
    >Look at the theocracies of the world - they are not good places to live for most people. I say this as an Atheist - it goes both ways. Countries where a lack of religion is forced can be pretty abhorrent too. Think of North Korea or Stalin's USSR. Perhaps the problem doesn't lie in the fact that the state-enforced ideology is religious, but instead that there is a state-enforced ideology at all.
    • azth 5y ago
      The problem is not in enforcing any arbitrary ideology (there needs to be one at the end of the day, there's no getting away from it), but that whether or not said ideology is moral and is able to lead the nation to prosperity. I would argue that it is possible: turn to Islam. It prohibits immorality and deviancy and corruption which are at the root of almost everything we are seeing today, while allowing citizens and residents (even non-Muslims) flexibility into deciding certain things that do not violate the Law. For example, we have even Jewish historians admitting that the Jews had it better than anywhere else in the world when they lived under Muslim rule.
  • pinephoneguy 5y ago
    What about the right to choose who you associate with? These people don't want the law to stop everyone else, just protect them.
    • shadowgovt 5y ago
      Great question. The short answer is "The Civil Rights Act curtails the right to freedom of association." It declared protected classes and then made illegal telling those classes "We don't serve your kind here." Subsequent court precedent upheld Congress's right to do this without a Constitutional amendment to adjust the First Amendment (IANAL so I unfortunately cannot direct you to that precedent quickly; the thumbnail sketch as I understand it is that the right to association is derived from the right to assembly, and that right is for political purposes, i.e. the government can't tell people "you can't get together and complain that government sucks," but refusing to serve people of a particular race or hire people of a particular gender is not political association and not protected by 1A). The reason this case is even in question (as opposed to the Courts just saying "We already settled this") is that the precedent for whether the Civil Rights Act burdens freedom of expression (i.e. speech) is much thinner on the ground. They're both First Amendment rights, but they're rights with different sets of precedent (and different understanding of magnitude; the right to association is derived from protection of "peaceable assembly," but expression is synonymous with speech and directly and clearly protected by 1A).
  • rayiner 5y ago
    By “extremist” you mean “completely ordinary” nearly everywhere in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East? https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/3594/the-countries-where-gay-marriage-is-legal/ https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/3594/the-countries-where-...
    • sofixa 5y ago
      Something being normal in a bunch of places, especially places low on the HDI, democracy, press freedom, Gini etc. indexes and coefficients doesn't make it non-extremist from GP's ( and arguably "western" point of view). Cutting arms for thievery, or jailing converts/gays/whatever or forcing raped women to marry their rapists or go to jail/get lashed for having sex outside of marriage are "normal" things in many theocracies. Are those things not extremist, abhorrent and abnormal for your average Westerner?
      • rayiner 5y ago
        Ah yes, the “those backwards brown and yellow people” argument. Also, the things you mention aren’t common in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. They’re not cutting off people’s hands for stealing in Bangladesh. But western countries are in the distinct minority in believing that marriage can encompass gay relationships.
        • jgwil2 5y ago
          Ah yes, the "bad faith accusation of racism to score rhetorical points" retort. You're apparently a lawyer, so you're obviously willfully misreading the comment you're replying to.
          • azth 5y ago
            It's not accusation of racism, but it's quite clear that OP thinks lower of those places because they're not "democracies" or have "free press". As if those things are causal reasons of prosperity or something. Not to mention false accusations of people being forced to marry their rapists or something. Rape and sexual harassment are much much more prevalent in the decadent sexually immoral West that's a fact. We're proud of our "barbaric" laws that punish the thieves and rapists and murderers and fornicators. Don't force your "enlightenment" on us, we saw where it got your culture OP.
  • azth 5y ago
    What's a "free society"? Like what the government did to the protestors in Canada?
    • odonnellryan 5y ago
      You're obviously upset about something, but you're not contributing to any real discussion.
      • azth 5y ago
        I'm pointing out the inconsistencies of the liberal ideology.