@Buck, I did upvote it.

I’m just not sure that videos like these do anything other than reinforce people’s beliefs (regardless of what position they hold).

Religion is only a symptom of the fundamental problem with modern society: unwillingness to accept facts that contradict your beliefs.

While those on the right (especially the religious right) tend to suffer more from it, liberals are not immune either (anti-vaxxers, ridiculous fad diets).

The Oatmeal made a fantastic comic about this. I genuinely believe that if we could get more people to read that, it would do more good than one million atheist videos.

Not as different as you think, when at least 1/3 and probably up to 1/2 of the people (100% wrongly) believe the constitution is not only based in Christianity, but was handed to Washington and Jefferson by Christ himself. The secular nature of the government the founders attempted to codify is eroding...we now have god on money, in our pledge of allegiance, in our courtrooms, etc. Religious rights/laws are on the rise, not decline.....at least Christian religious rights and laws.

The church is in decline, yes. Out of power, not by 1/2.

Yes, my point, it's not secular if being atheist disqualifies one from holding office. There is a religious test, not by law but in reality. That alone precludes true secularism, and it's not alone.

Well, of course there are other countries, but I only know how religion interacts with the government in my own country, and even then I freely admit there's much I don't know, both by their design of the system and from my own lack of interest. I can't speak with any first hand knowledge about how Europe is evolving (or devolving), how it's governments respond to religious pressures, or how their populations react. That's why I stuck to the US in my response, which is a place that the religious right describes as you did, totally secular and fast removing all power from Christianity, when the reality is you can't be elected here if you don't pray to Christ publicly and removing special privileges only granted to religion is considered a war against religion and an attempt to stamp it out...at least by 1/3 of us if not more.

As for perspective, you limited it to "the time we live in", but you want to counter my answer with "historically....", and YOU said "secular constitution", so I'm not sure how you translate that to "globally". To me, "secular constitution" strongly implies the US.
Clearly things are different in ANY democracy than under a theocratic dictatorship. That goes without saying....but I guess not to you, so now I said it, so now you can see the perspective that went right over your head.

As much as I am a Sander's supporter. I can't support the idea of him running as an independent. That would split the Democratic vote too much, and the idea of a Trump Presidency is far too dangerous. I think the fact that the polls show again and again that Sanders would do much better against Trump should show the DNC that Hillary needs Sanders and his supporters far more than Sanders needs her and her supporters.

If I were Hillary I'd offer Sanders the VP spot. Even if he doesn't accept, he gets the prime time keynote spot. Then you also promise the Congressional Progressive Caucus get's at least 60% of the rest of the prime time spots, with moderates getting 40% of the prime time spot. Off prime time the CPC still gets 40% (no less than 33%). Between Sanders and the CPC having the bulk of the prime time spots, it helps move the progressive message forward.

She then needs to have a known progressive on her ticket. If she can't secure Sanders, she'd probably consider Warren, but unfortunately, two women might make too many independent voters nervous. So I'd push for Dennis Kucinich. The advantage with Kucinich is that he's a known progressive, and he'd help give Clinton Ohio. If you can't get him, then find a rising member of the CPC. Again, the idea is to push the progressive agenda. Warren and Sanders have to have spots in the cabinet though if they want in.

There's enough hate of Trump in the Republican ranks that I think this year is the year to push for 3rd parties, especially the Libertarian party since that is the one most likely to pull votes from Republicans looking for an alternative to Trump... it won't pull the religious right who'll stick with Trump, but the more sane minded Republicans will probably consider it over absentee voting. The anti-Trump Republicans need to push the idea of the Libertarian party, and then push for Republicans for the Senate and House to avoid loosing the Senate, which is possible...

The Democrats meanwhile need to do something to get people out and vote. Democratic turnout keeps going down, beyond what one would expect purely from the Voter ID laws Republicans put in to lower Democratic votes. They need to rally the base into actually getting out and voting. To secure not only the Presidency from Trump, but to overtake the Senate and start making a push for the House. Of course one of the main way they do this is start appealing to Sanders supporters, and the party seems so intent on dissing his supporters.

The DNC is way too dismissive of the actions in Nevada. The Nevada people went out of their way to make sure Sanders didn't win, they knew people were still trying to get in when they made rule changes... people they were holding back on purpose so they could push those changes through, then when those people got in, they of course were upset. The DNC, a party that publicly tries to support those who have been disenfranchised from voting, is going out of their way to disenfranchise a large percentage of its base... all just because it's Clinton's turn or something. Fine, let it be her turn, but don't shut out the movement. She needs to step to the left, and add a large number of progressive voices to her team. She and the DNC needs to reach out to Sanders supporters and other progressives and unite the party... Trump seems to be pulling in the moderates to his side. As split as the Republicans were at the start, they are starting to pull together far better than the Democrats are... and it isn't up to Sanders to drop out and push his support to her, she needs to be the one to offer an olive branch and start wooing him and his supporters. Right now they seem to think it's Sander's job... no, it's the leader's job... It isn't the Republican moderates reaching out to Trump, it is Trump meeting with them and wooing them. Some to less success than others, true enough, but he's doing far better at starting an appeal to the moderates than Clinton is to Sanders, his supporters and the progressives.

For the religious right, life begins at conception, and there's nothing you can say to convince them that a fetus does not deserve the same rights as a person.

A better argument IMO, is described in the Violinist Scenario. Basically, you wake up one day to find that a famous violinist is now attached to your body without your consent. The violinist has organ failure, and must depend on your body for the next 9 months to recover. It doesn't matter that the violinist is a real person and has full legal rights, you still have the right to refuse him and let him die.

>>>Are you saying you believe adding the topic of removing these unconstitutional parts of the law would stall, or even log jam that debate to the point of failure?

That was exactly what Rick Jones said when I quoted him above:
"The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done....
Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional."

>>> Removing unconstitutional laws that are designed to target 'undesirable' portions of the population is not pointless.
Ok, "pointless" is the wrong word. "Futile" would be more accurate.

>>> IANAL?
I Am Not A Lawyer. Sorry, thought that was a commonly know acronym.

>>> I can't imagine anyone publicly supporting it, so there should be no debate, it should simply be easily adopted in 2 minutes.
Really? You can't imagine a politician supporting an anti-sodomy law? In a country where Rick fucking Santorum was considered a potential presidential candidate for one of the two main parties?
'cos I can imagine it pretty easily.
Reasonable human: "we'd like to stop animal abuse and get rid of this ridiculous puritanical law at the same time"
The likes of bobknight "RARRRG!! assault on family values, persecution of christians, fganogle..... GAAAAWWWWWWD" (while drooling)

>>> How's 1 year ago? Recent enough?
Jesus, that's depressing. At least, the case was thrown out, and on the plus side, having a ruling against the law sets a precedent.

Look, I agree that the law is ridiculous, and as I said, it's kind of shocking to think this attitude still exists in a supposedly educated, enlightened country. In a perfect world, laws like this would never have existed. Hell, in a fucking semi-sane, reasonable world, they'd have been wiped at least a decade ago when the supreme court declared them unconstitutional.

But right now, US politics is not even close to sane or reasonable. If it was, you could have an actual election between a centre right candidate (Hillary) and a democratic socialist (Sanders), instead of the current clusterfuck of having Hillary or god only knows what on the fucking looney tunes side.

So while the idealist side of me says that every single law like this should be fought tooth and nail, the pragmatic side of me says that until the US political system hacks its way out of the tentacles of the religious right, some ugly compromises are unavoidable.

Given that this doesn't actually make the situation worse (remember this law already existed), it's just a question of picking your battles.

no mistaken assumption my friend.
just looking at the bigger picture is all.

was the "company" really disgusted by this mans behavior?
or were they performing damage control?
i suspect the latter.

which is why i brought up the PC police and the inherent dangers within.i even referenced a case in canada which had gone too far.(in my opinion).

does the company have a right to fire him? short answer? yes.
but nobody is asking about this mans rights,and if they are honest with themselves it is because he is a grotesque example of a human being.

so you try to further your point by doing a thought experiment,and i hate thought experiments,but ok..lets play:
what if he was advocating the legalization of sex with prepubescent children?

ah my friend.
this is easy.
the answer is arrest and convict.
but why you may ask?

here is where i think you may be misunderstanding my argument and your thought experiment reveals this quite plainly.

to YOU.this example of child sex and our racist turdnugget here are the same.

they are not.

because advocating to legalize child sex is an "intent to harm".the adovcating will result in actual harm of actual children.see:child pornography.

while turdnugget here has actually harmed no one.
nobody was actually harmed.
maybe disgusted.
maybe a feeling or two.

lets try another thought experiment.
what if this man was filmed not being an ugly racist but rather smoking weed with some buddies.

should he be fired?

another one:what if he is filmed at a sanders rally (unlikely) and the president of the company is a die-hard trump supporter?

should he be fired?

look,it is easy to view this man losing his job as some kind of justice,but we need to be honest why we are ok with THIS man getting fired and that reason is simply that he is grotesque and offensive.

but he did not actually HARM anyone.he was just offensive and IS offensive to our sensibilities.

i agree that there is an irony in this situation.the man verbally attacks a perceived threat to his livelihood,and then loses that livelihood.

it may have a certain poetry to it,but is that justice?
no.

the larger argument is this:when is it considered normal or acceptable to hold people to a company standard when they are:
not working.
not in uniform.
not representing the company in ANY way.
are not getting paid for this off time.
are engaging in activities which are harming no one but may be viewed as contrary to company standards?


where is the line drawn?
and who draws that line?
who enforces it?

while the company has a right to fire you for any reason it wishes,does it have a right to impose behavior,activities,personal life choices when you are not on the clock?

with the PC police engaging in ever more draconian and bullying tactics to impose their own sense of morality upon others,based on what THEY feel is righteous and morally correct.i feel this will get out of hand very quickly,and the canadian example i used is only one of many.

here is one thing i do not understand.
how come when the religious right uses tactics very similar to this,we all stand up and shout "fuck you buddy",but when the PC police behave in an almost identical fashion....people applaud.

that is just NOT a morally consistent stance.
it is hypocritical.

so maybe in the short run we can view this ugly example of a human being and think to ourselves that some form of justice was served,but that is a lie.it may make us feel good and tickle our moral compass as somehow being a righteous outcome to a reprehensible piece of shit,but it is no way justice.

in the larger context and taken to its logical conclusion:this moral calculus could be a future metric to impose obedience and compliance from,not just turdnugget,but EVERYBODY...and that includes you.

and THAT is something that i find extremely disturbing.

the PC police are having a real impact,with real consequences and even though they may have the best of intentions,the real result is social control,obedience and compliance.

i would rather i keep my liberty and freedoms to do as i wish.the PC police can suck a bag of dicks.

I've seen the Armored Skeptic take him down several times... pretty convinced that is some religious, right-wing nuttery at work through and through

Idk, it wasn't legal anywhere in the world before 2000, its not as if the rest of the west have had it for donkeys years while we looked down on the States. Its only been legal in the UK (not even all of it!) for a year and we don't have that much of a religious right wing to contend with. Really I think its a much greater achievement given how loud those bigots have been and how much of a political issue it seems to have been.

I'm confused on why the religious right want to deny equal rights to people. Even if it is a sin, it doesn't effect anyone but themselves. Jesus spent His whole time hanging with sinners and ministering to them. He wouldn't be arguing against them having equal rights under the law just because they sin differently than others. He taught again and again that Love was the greatest Commandment, that being all self righteous and showing how holy you are was bad. Modern Christianity has turned from love to a denial of equal rights under the law based on people sinning differently than they do. Let they without sin cast the first stone... and yet they cast their stones in the form of votes and denying products/services with their business and so on because they don't like the sin, as if they are so holy and sin free theme selves. Not only did Jesus say let those without sin cast the first stone, He Himself, with out sin didn't cast any stones. These holy crusaders ask, "What Would Jesus Do" but then ignore what He'd actually do... Why this obsession over people sinning differently than they do? If that sin doesn't hurt anyone else directly, then who cares? If God wants to convict them of their sin, then let Him do it, not us... it's almost as if the Christian Right don't think God is doing enough convicting and are trying to do it themselves, as if God isn't strong enough to do it, or it upsets them so much they don't want to let go and let God...

And why does Sodom get the rap for gay stuff and sodomy? The Bible specifically says the sin of Sodom was being a land of plenty without enough concern for the needy and the poor (basically full of Republicans). "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." - NIV. "This is what your sister Sodom has done wrong. She and her daughters were proud that they had plenty of food and had peace and security. They didn't help the poor and the needy." - God's Word... all versions equal to the same basic thing... People blame the gays on correlative texts, mostly relating to what happened to the angels when they arrived to rescue Lot's family... where Lot offered his betrothed daughters to be raped instead (which by Biblical law meant they'd have to be stoned to death as well as their rapist, though one could perhaps argue that Deuteronomy 22:23-24 comes after the story of Sodom so that law might not yet have applied). Anyhow, the Bible speaks that the Sin of Sodom was not helping the needy and the poor... why God, who knows every single secret thought you have ever had or ever will have before you were even formed in the womb (before the foundations of the world were even formed) and yet needs angels to see if there are good people???

And a million and one more rants...

I don't give a damn if corporations can have religions or not. Their religious rights should entitle them to exactly 4/5 of fuck all.

Tell you what, America. If you let Muslim and Jewish business owners ban their employees from eating pork, then you can have this retarded legislation

Some disconnected thoughts:

I didn't mean to say what you weren't saying. Apologies. I do like what you said here, "for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do." Yes, a crappy thing. I think we'd better get used to it; at least in the United States where people want to adhere to the letter of the law when it comes to asserting their rights.

Am I wrong in assuming you live outside of the States? If so that makes it easy for me to understand your stance on religious rights being unequal with other rights.

I am not insisting that discrimination be protected. Far from it. If you were being discriminated against you would want me in your corner. I detest discrimination. What I find interesting about all of the cases you mentioned, the only reason a gay couple has given for asking the state to enforce the anti-discrimination laws is over the issue of marriage and the issue of marriage alone. The photographer and bakers apparently served the gay community in other capacities from their storefronts without incident. No lawsuits, no nothing. I think we have to ask 'why?" What is it specifically about marriage that would cause a Christian (or a Muslim, or any number of religions for that matter), to say, "I can't participate in that?" I suspect that if the couple in question had been a man and two or three women getting married that the business owners response would have been the same - that is not our understanding of marriage, sorry we can't in good conscience go there." At the risk of repeating myself, their refusal isn't about the people they refused. It is specifically about the act of marriage.

As an aside, I find it ironic to the nth degree that the State of Oregon is trying to legally compel the bakery owners to participate in a ceremony that is illegal in the State of Oregon. Marriage among gays in Oregon is illegal. Sigh. This is why I wish religion, of any sort, would get out of the business of telling people what to do. I would like to see a withdrawal from the legislation of religious tenets that are not in line with the US Constitution. Then gays could marry freely in this country and this argument could be put away.

Many of the problems in this world could be resolved if the religionists didn't feel like they needed to make everyone outside of their religion believe and behave like they do. As I see it, in a free society, a religious belief should not be able compel those outside that belief to do anything.

You may be familiar with openly gay author/blogger Andrew Sullivan who has written about this subject. He says: I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

There is, of course, extensive writing on this issue by all sides and we may never be able to untangle it here but I have enjoyed getting your perspective.



“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

I hope you're right. I hope we never have an opportunity to find out. But here is, in part, the text of Oregon's law:

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

"Religion" doesn't not have a special designation of 'unless' in there. I can see those Westboro Baptist a-holes notice that and will have some gay bakers baking a cake for them every day of the week.

All of this discussion is really a digression of my initial post which was to say: If our communities were stronger, if we'd risk more relationally, if we'd put down the electronics and get to know each other, it sure would be a lot easier to get along. We would have less use for the legal system to resolve our differences.

Let me ask you, have you ever seen a law change someone's heart? I haven't.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't suggest the Muslim men were not discriminating. I simply stated that the Canadian woman who wanted to force devout Muslim men to cut her hair, for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do. Just as if a mixed race couple were to find Archie Bunker to ask him to cater their wedding solely for the purpose of crying foul when they get discriminated against by the well known racist.

But that's not what's going on with the wedding couple, the photographer or the bakers. You are insisting that discrimination should be protected as a fundamental human right if someone calls it their “religion” and I find that idea abhorrent. So does the State of Oregon.

The bakers can't discriminate against a gay couple on religious grounds just as Archie Bunker can't deny blacks from drinking from the same water fountain as him. The difference between these two analogies is Archie Bunker wouldn't then turn around and suggest that his right to be a bigot is a fundamental human right that is on par with black's rights to not be discriminated against.

“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

As stated many times above, your right to religion extends to the tip of your nose. That's how and why physical rights trump religious rights.

I guess I am having difficulty squaring two of the things you've mentioned. If a devout Muslim barber can refuse to serve women and this is not seen as discrimination why can't a devout Christian refuse to participate in a gay wedding and get the same respect from you?

As to the idea that religious rights, or rights of conscience are subservient to rights of physical attributes or genetic predisposition I need more convincing. The Civil Rights Act doesn't favor one over the other. Religion ranks as an equal with race, color, sex and national origin. How are physical rights "more protected?"

An instance comes to mind where someone's religious rights are actually weighed as more important that your physical rights. Members of the Native American Church may legally use peyote. You and I will be arrested.

I see the argument of conscience vs. genetics upside down from where you've landed. So does the State of Oregon. Did you know, that if there is no reconciliation between the bakery and the State then State will move to 'rehabilitate?' Because something must be defective in the bakery owner's mind they need to be 'rehabilitated.' That is chilling. The very idea that your thoughts could be somehow suspect indicates that the State has concluded that thoughts are incredibly important. Because thoughts lead to behavior. Not only do they not want you behaving in a certain manner, they don't even want you thinking it. I reference 1984 and Animal Farm.

I am not sure that people know what they are asking for when they back this kind of intrusion. It might seem right to them at this moment, but when their counterparts are are in charge (because the pendulum swings), it makes one wonder what thoughts will be in the dock then. How will that law be used to root out contrary thinking then? I want to be free to think what I want to think. I want the privilege of being right and the privilege of being wrong. I also want you to have that privilege, as well.

As I have mentioned before, I think these laws are blunt. While I agree that people should not be discriminated against and I practice that in my own life, what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event? How can they refuse since they already cater other events? We have opened the proverbial can of worms

You're kidding, right? Gays should "respect" that religions think they're perverts? Or that they are responsible for everything from pedophilia to earthquakes and hurricanes? I'm not even being funny, those are all things the religious right have accused gay people of. Even on this site, we frequently see opponents of gay marriage trot out the tired "if gay marriage, then incest and bestiality" argument as if they were equivalent.

So let me be absolutely unambiguous: FUCK.... THAT.....SHIT.

People absolutely have the right to say they don't want to serve gay people, or blacks, or irish or jews or whoever, and then everyone else has the right to boycott their business and call them out as bigoted assholes on the wrong side of history.

But unless they're in Kansas, they have no right to actually refuse service.

When you insult your customer base with your beliefs, you go out of business. That's why one should keep their beliefs out of business (unless they're ready to fail).
or
What if it's the 'belief' of the LGBT community that people who think this way should not be associated with, and are simply 'warning' others from accidentally committing the sin of collusion?
If there's really threatening and violence happening from the LGBT towards the 'religious', that's criminal and prosecutable (but perfectly understandable)...I haven't seen it. I have seen the reverse quite often.('religious' people being violent towards LGBTs, just look at Russia and note the similarity between what the open gay bashers there say and what the religious right says (or said recently)).