Regarding the laws that restrict religious freedom, by preventing God-Fearing people from associating with the Ungodly, homosexuals, the transgendered, and those freaks the Intersexed... not being able to refuse them service at restaurants, or to refuse to let them rooms because of their sinful behaviour....It's sad that that's true. The Pharisees, the Lawyers and the Scribes, the Pastors, the Evangelists and the Church Wardens don't see themselves as they would be seen by Him. They know Him not.
I know of one guy - though I've not met him personally, I know many who have - and he's a bit of a disreputable character. He claims to be deeply spiritual, but when you look at the kind of people he hangs out with, you have to wonder.
Rather than shunning them to show his disapproval of their sin, he consorts with prostitutes and other lowlives. Money-lenders, even those in the pay of foreign powers. Scum and Filth. No-one, no pastor or upstanding member of the community wants to have anything to do with him. Now he *says* that he does this because these lowlives are the ones most in need. But everyone who knows the scriptures knows he's violating dozens of laws.
He *says* he's obeying the spirit behind them, that the greatest commandments are "Love God, and be Kind to others", that everything else is subordinate to that and over-ruled by it.
Well.
I predict he'll come to a bad end one day. Certainly nobody respectable has anything to do with him.
It's guys like that that are responsible for all of these "human rights" laws we have. We demand the right to persecute others on the basis of our Christian Faith. We're nothing like this "Jesus" character.
Saturday, 14 March 2009
And they're not, either
My comment over at ConnPolitics, about those who want to abolish those laws preventing discrimination against the sinful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Anti-discrimination laws regarding private employers and other individuals acting privately do infringe upon the right of freedom of association.
--appplause for Zoe--
Anti-discrimination laws regarding private employers and other individuals acting privately do infringe upon the right of freedom of association.
In so far as no right is an absolute right, the question that one must ask is whether the law unreasonably infringes upon the right to freedom of association.
In general such laws make it harder for an employer to terminate or refuse to hire someone simply because they are GLBT. Are you suggesting that this is an unreasonable limitation on the freedom of association rights?
"Anti-discrimination laws regarding private employers and other individuals acting privately do infringe upon the right of freedom of association."
Freedom of association is a right of individuals in their private life, not their public role.
Businesses are not individuals. They are not private life. They are not free of obligations to the rights of others.
A person who works with someone must accept their obligation to work with them. They may choose to or not to associate with them outside of work. But while working they are obliged by their professional ethics to work alongside them whoever they are.
Employing or serving someone is a service, not a private act. Human Rights apply that overide freedom of association within that role.
Who they do or don't talk to in their own time is up to them. The duty of profession however overides personal private choices.
A doctor must treat all (paying where appropriate) patients, a lawyer must too, a policeman cant pick and choose who they arrest or let go based on who they like or dislike. Their duty comes first.
In fact we call it CORRUPTION when a policeman imposes thier personal views over the obligations of their job.
Well just like a doctor or surgeon or policeman a shopkeeper has the same duty, the same obligations.
It's identical. There is no exception. There is no conflict with freedom of association.
Unless you think we should apply that freedom of association rule to the police and the ER surgeons? Especially if they don't like christians!
... no? Wouldn't like that?
I didn't think so!
I think the best we can do is continue to try to get a foot on the veil as these people continue to dance around. And it will drop sooner or later for all to see. Keep up the Good Work, Zoe.
Battybattybats,
What you fail to distinguish is that a private employer or an employee working for a private employer are acting in a private manner, even if they interact with the public as part of their work. The enterprise that they work on is privately owned and operated and all funding comes from private sources (including from customers), so therefore it is the decisions of the private owner or owners to decide how to dispense their property. Just because they serve the public in general does not mean that any member of the public has any claim on their privately owned property, or can decide which criteria by which the owner may decide or not decide to allow them any use of it, because it is private individuals acting with their private property.
I'm certain that you can see how policemen would be excluded from the above paragraph--for if you can't, then you do not understand my point at all.
Just because they serve the public in general does not mean that any member of the public ... can decide which criteria by which the owner may decide or not decide to allow them any use of it, because it is private individuals acting with their private property.
Patently false- there are all kinds of laws that dictate how business owners may/must provide access to their private property when engaged in business, whether it is laws prohibiting landlords from refusing to rent to certain races/religions, a restaurant being required to provide access for the disabled or serve people of all races, or a business being required to consider job applicants of all sexes.
Business owners who don't like it are free to either lobby for waivers and other dispensations or for the law in question to be struck down, or to get out of the business...that's what you fail to acknowledge when you act as if they are *forced* to do any of these things.
This is what Lester Maddox did when his Pickrick Cafeteria was faced with having to serve blacks after the passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act- he filed a lawsuit to maintain his segregationist policy towards black customers, lost, and sold the place rather than compromise his principles.
As odious as those principles were, at least he had some and took action available to him rather than pretend that the law didn't apply to him after it had been clearly adjudicated.
If an employee in a private firm doesn't like working next to a black or latino or female or transsexual person, he is free to leave at any time if his principles dictate that it is an untenable situation...but this rarely happens, because in most cases those "principles" have no courage of conviction or honesty behind them.
TinaSD,
You do not need to remind of the laws or the way the government enforces them--it does not make right that violation of the right of freedom of association, though.
Prior to the 1960s, it was common for state laws to require segregation and discrimination, so I harbor no illusions that there ever was a full respect for the right of freedom of association. It doesn't make it right though.
TinaSD,
"If an employee in a private firm doesn't like working next to a black or latino or female or transsexual person, he is free to leave at any time if his principles dictate that it is an untenable situation...but this rarely happens, because in most cases those "principles" have no courage of conviction or honesty behind them."
True. That would be an exercise of the right of freedom of association, as the employee would not want to associate with some of his co-workers.
I also agree that when it comes down to it, most employees and most employers would not disciminate or segregate on those bases, even if there were no laws against it, because it wouldn't make any business sense.
Post a Comment