6 ms·

Do you disagree because of the Sabbath?

by tuckerconnelly 4y ago

egberts1 4y ago
Does it matter?
- Sunspark 4y ago
  For some it might. What if one is a practising member of a religion that has their Sabbath on Friday or Saturday? They are put at a competitive disadvantage if they are forced to be closed for 2 days instead of 1.
  - kevviiinn 4y ago
    That argument is just absurd, why should that matter Is it the responsibility of the government to protect the profit opportunities of some specific people who choose to be a certain religion?
- zenexer 4y ago
  Yes: if it’s the sabbath, that’s an argument with which I’m familiar. My counter-argument is that I don’t want to be forced to practice someone else’s religion. If your religion already imposes those rules on its followers, why does it need a secular government to assist? If it’s not the sabbath, then I’m intrigued and want to learn more.
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    That isn’t forcing you to practice a religion.
    - thwarted 4y ago
      If there's a fine for operating your business on Sunday because Sunday is the Sabbath, then there's a tax on not practicing a religion.
    - causality0 4y ago
      It's literally forcing a tenet of a religion on everyone. It's like making it illegal to sell beef on Fridays during Lent or making alcohol illegal in an Islamic country.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Somewhat pedantic, but I would note that Sunday isn't the Sabbath, Saturday is. Most Christians don't observe the Sabbath (citing Jesus's defense of the woman who was supposed to be stoned because she had collected wood on the Sabbath). Instead, they rest on the Lord's day, commemorating Jesus's resurrection the day after the Sabbath, while still recognizing that their god rested after creating the world on a Saturday.
wongarsu 4y ago
Not OP, but I think having one day where nearly everyone (except restaurants, attractions, hospitality and essential services) has off is good for family cohesion. It gives everyone a guaranteed weekly timeslot to spend time together.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  << except restaurants, attractions, hospitality and essential services Does cohesion of those families matter less?
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    Is that a real question? You didn't split out essential services, and it seems dead-obvious to me that shutting those down would cause more harm than good even when you value all families exactly the same. There's no way they're saying the families of essential service providers are less important. And it seems pretty clear they're grouping those other things in with essential services, which you could disagree with, but is a very different thing from saying those families are less important.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
      << Is that a real question? I am genuinely curious how a person reconciles two seemingly opposing views: "It gives everyone a guaranteed weekly timeslot to spend time together." where everyone is everyone except: "except restaurants, attractions, hospitality and essential services". I could easily give in on essential services, because a lot will ride on how broadly they are defined, but if the goal is 'family cohesion' building for everyone then as few groups should be excluded as possible ( which also means that businesses that people, who usually have even less leisure time than most of us -- restaurants, attractions, hospitality -- can recharge ). I will be honest. For me it the line drawing always tends to be the most interesting piece, because it tends to indicate what the individual really values. In this case, and this is not a shot, because it is very human thing to do, they value 'their family cohesion' and 'their ability to participate in various leisure activities' over those who have to serve them, while they bond with their loved ones. For the record, the line listed by parent is not unreasonable, but can you give me an argument as to why it is not amazingly selfish way of looking at society ( Sunday for me, but not for thee ).
ipcress_file 4y ago
What irked me was that a lot of major corporations got together to subvert the law out of self-interest. If the people wanted to change the law, fine. Call a referendum.

Do you disagree because of the Sabbath?

egberts1 4y ago

Does it matter?

Sunspark 4y ago
For some it might. What if one is a practising member of a religion that has their Sabbath on Friday or Saturday? They are put at a competitive disadvantage if they are forced to be closed for 2 days instead of 1.
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  That argument is just absurd, why should that matter Is it the responsibility of the government to protect the profit opportunities of some specific people who choose to be a certain religion?
zenexer 4y ago
Yes: if it’s the sabbath, that’s an argument with which I’m familiar. My counter-argument is that I don’t want to be forced to practice someone else’s religion. If your religion already imposes those rules on its followers, why does it need a secular government to assist? If it’s not the sabbath, then I’m intrigued and want to learn more.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  That isn’t forcing you to practice a religion.
  - thwarted 4y ago
    If there's a fine for operating your business on Sunday because Sunday is the Sabbath, then there's a tax on not practicing a religion.
  - causality0 4y ago
    It's literally forcing a tenet of a religion on everyone. It's like making it illegal to sell beef on Fridays during Lent or making alcohol illegal in an Islamic country.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Somewhat pedantic, but I would note that Sunday isn't the Sabbath, Saturday is. Most Christians don't observe the Sabbath (citing Jesus's defense of the woman who was supposed to be stoned because she had collected wood on the Sabbath). Instead, they rest on the Lord's day, commemorating Jesus's resurrection the day after the Sabbath, while still recognizing that their god rested after creating the world on a Saturday.

wongarsu 4y ago

Not OP, but I think having one day where nearly everyone (except restaurants, attractions, hospitality and essential services) has off is good for family cohesion. It gives everyone a guaranteed weekly timeslot to spend time together.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
<< except restaurants, attractions, hospitality and essential services Does cohesion of those families matter less?
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Is that a real question? You didn't split out essential services, and it seems dead-obvious to me that shutting those down would cause more harm than good even when you value all families exactly the same. There's no way they're saying the families of essential service providers are less important. And it seems pretty clear they're grouping those other things in with essential services, which you could disagree with, but is a very different thing from saying those families are less important.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    << Is that a real question? I am genuinely curious how a person reconciles two seemingly opposing views: "It gives everyone a guaranteed weekly timeslot to spend time together." where everyone is everyone except: "except restaurants, attractions, hospitality and essential services". I could easily give in on essential services, because a lot will ride on how broadly they are defined, but if the goal is 'family cohesion' building for everyone then as few groups should be excluded as possible ( which also means that businesses that people, who usually have even less leisure time than most of us -- restaurants, attractions, hospitality -- can recharge ). I will be honest. For me it the line drawing always tends to be the most interesting piece, because it tends to indicate what the individual really values. In this case, and this is not a shot, because it is very human thing to do, they value 'their family cohesion' and 'their ability to participate in various leisure activities' over those who have to serve them, while they bond with their loved ones. For the record, the line listed by parent is not unreasonable, but can you give me an argument as to why it is not amazingly selfish way of looking at society ( Sunday for me, but not for thee ).

ipcress_file 4y ago

What irked me was that a lot of major corporations got together to subvert the law out of self-interest. If the people wanted to change the law, fine. Call a referendum.