As far as the Scriptures are concerned, the Scriptures were written for the Church, by the Church, to be interpreted only within the tradition of the Church because the tradition of the Church is formed through the acting of the Holy Spirit throughout the Church.
So in other words, "We're right because we say so."
That's not a reason.
It's also not an accurate statement of Orthodox teaching.
This is and always was about businesses not individuals. No one is agrueing for a law against discrimination on an individual level.
I have a friend who does wedding photography on the side (his main job is as an IT manager). Is he a business or an individual?
[For the record, this isn't a hypothetical, I do have a friend in that situation. Granted he's not in Indiana so is unaffected by the law, but if MA passed the same law which would he be?]
I'm saying that the fraternity issuing a statement saying none of their guys did it doesn't mean that she wasn't raped at all.
You're just paraphrasing what has already been said by numerous parties, including the Columbia School of Journalism report and the Charlottesville police. The emerging consensus on this matter seems to be that something traumatic probably did happen to her, but we don't know what it was and the particular story told in Rolling Stone is contradicted by the evidence. I don't see many people (outside the usual suspects in the MRA crowd) who are outright calling her a liar. The focus is on the magazine's lousy journalism instead.
I wouldn't say that I've seen anyone calling "Jackie" a liar. I have seen people calling Erdly a liar, and (in my opinion), rightfully so.
No. Emphatically not. That's the whole point. Because of (3), this act extends to any entity that can sue or be sued, not just individuals and entities covered by (2). ["An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes."]
Reread the part you cut off:
(B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.
That is the entire problem with this bill: it allows an organization like a regular, for-profit business to be considered a "person" under this act, thereby allowing those individuals who have control and substantial ownership of the company to claim the company has a religious stance to deny certain people (specifically gay ones) service.
I may be misinterpreting you, but that *isn't* actually a distinction between the Indiana law and the Federal Law. As we learned in the hobby Lobby case. Like I said though, I may be misinterpreting what you are saying here.
A wedding cake is a wedding cake. I've no problem with a business not selling a 'husband and husband' cake topper, but there is no difference between the cakes themselves.
I think some distinction needs to be drawn here -- when referring to the wedding cake example we're not referring to a bakery selling an off the shelf cake. We're referring to a custom designed and decorated cake. A bakery that is just supplying you with an off the shelf cake can't justifiably claim that their provision of the cake includes an implicit acceptance and approval of the practice.
Another thing that is easy to notice is the areas where refusal is arguably justifiable all involve some form of personal service / intimate connection with the subject matter. Making and providing a wedding cake is significantly more involved than just "providing a cake".
So, I got a little lost reading through the thread and have no idea where it headed... but anyway:
The real question being asked here is "When is discrimination acceptable" -- To that I'd say, discrimination is acceptable when it is not based on an intrinsic quality unrelated to the decision being made.
A homeless guy vs. a guy in a tailored Armani suit walking into a Ferrari dealership? Acceptable to discriminate.
A Black guy vs. a White guy, both in tailored Armani suits walking into a Ferrari dealership? Not Acceptable.
It becomes a much stickier wicket when something *looks* like discrimination, and *feels* like discrimination to the person being refused service, when the motivation for refusal is not discriminatory.
Example: When I was a lifeguard, we had a two story water slide. Naturally, there was a height requirement on riders. We would frequently have to turn kids away at the top when their parents didn't read the sign, or thought they didn't need to follow it. Rarely, a kid would just run up and onto the slide. In which case we would need to jump in, pull them out etc. One day, while I was the guard at the bottom of the slide I hear a shout from the top, and I know that some kid did just that. I prepped myself, jumped in, pulled the kid out, and gave the parents a stern talking to, and instructed them that the kid wasn't allowed anywhere near the slide for the rest of the day.
10 minutes later a Black women and her son ignored the sign, and got turned away at the top. She proceeded to yell about how we had let the white boy go down the slide, and weren't letting her son go down. Obvious racism is obvious. I had to explain to her that we didn't *let* the other boy go down the slide, he went down against the rules, and I had to jump in and pull him out of the water. And that he was banned from even going near the slide for the rest of the day because of it.
In this situation, what happened was not racist discrimination. But, from the perspective of the black women and her son it sure felt like it, and she was angry about it. What we need to be capable of when banning discrimination is that we are banning discriminatory practices, not practices that *feel* like discrimination when they aren't.
So, we then have to turn the question to the Indiana law. Is refusing to cater/photograph/whatever a gay marriage reception discrimination, or is it more analogous to the situation that feels like discrimination but has a different underlying reason?
I think the distinction should be drawn as follows: If the caterer/photographer/whatever is willing to cater/photograph/whatever gay functions, or functions involving gay individuals, but they refuse gay weddings specifically, then there is a strong argument that their underlying reason is not "because they are gay", but is rather because they believe providing that service will implicitly indicate that they approve of gay weddings. If however, the refusal of service extends beyond that and applies to anyone who is openly gay and the service refused is for any function then it can be assumed that the refusal is no longer a principled stand against gay marriage, and has become a principled stand against gay people, which is improper.
The follow up is, of course, is a principled stand against gay marriage any different than a principled stand against gay people.
@BlinkingSpirtit: Word change with time. It doesn't matter what the meaning was 50 years ago. That's why it is misleading to say that any distinction making is discriminatory. You and the person who I have accused of being a troll are playing a semantics game here. I don't think you do it on purpose, so let me explain further:
You might well argue against the above that, yes, having 10 USD makes you part of the group of people having 10 USD, just like having a million makes you part of the group of millionaires. But this is true only in a mathemathical sense. It's not part of who a person is, which is how the word is used today. If you allow that kind of distinction to be called discrimination, then, yes, everything is discrimination, which muddies the water and any racist could argue, that no one can critizise him/her because that would be discrimination. See?
Critizising a person for being black is discrimination.
Critizising a person for being a racist isn't discrimination.
^This is how the word is used today, which is what counts.
Discrimination:
Quote from dictionary.com »
noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit:
racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment:
She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.
It looks like what we really have here is both meanings are correct. Thus, it is important to use contextual clues as to what meaning is being used. Also, it's bad from to assert your definition is the only one, when your source has multiple definitions listed.
The only thing that GWB did right during his tenure was quickly engaging after 9/11, and even then he ended up going to war against the wrong country, based on faulty evidence(at best..it's in the realm of possibility that our government just deliberately mislead us because they really just wanted to go to war with Iraq).
No he didn't. Moving into Afghanistan was the correct move, and was the correct country. Iraq was a separate issue (albeit very close in timing), and I think it's a fair criticism that he was trying to finish his dad's war when it wasn't necessary. But the administration at least never tried to make it about 9/11. It was about the WMD's (that turned out not to exist).
Which is another point -- W had faulty intelligence. That combined with Saddam's play of "calling our bluff" when we demanded to inspect, led to an (incorrect) certainty that wmd's actually existed. In other words, yes it was a bad move and was predicated on false konwledge, but it wasn't made up knowledge and W wasn't "lying" to the country.
The Patriot Act, the overzealous current nature of TSA, giving corporations so much freedom that Citizens United was ultimately able to occur, and the fiasco in Iraq directly led to the creation of ISIS.
Lets be fair here, of those things the only one that is directly W's responsibility is the Iraq situation. The patriot act and the overzealousness of the TSA are both the result of sweeping bipartisanship, and Citizen's United was a supreme court decision.
I guess the summation is: Just like I don't think everything that is happening now can be blamed on Obama (Thanks Obama!), I don't think everything that happened then can be blamed on W.
that's not to say W was a "great" president. Or even necessarily a "good" president. I just don't think he was a "bad" president.
So, as I'm sure most of you are aware, SCOTUS will be hearing arguments in King v. Burwell soon. For those of you not following it: This is the next case in the "poke holes in Obamacare" campaign. In this one, SCOTUS has to decide whether the language of Obamacare allows subsidies to apply to purchases made over federal exchanges instead of state run exchanges.
Wihtout going into too many details, I think the results of this case will be a somewhat tortured analysis that comes to the conclusion that federal exchanges are state exchanges because the federal government is doing it "for the states". I think that's a bad route to go down, but I don't see SCOTUS allowing something this devastating to happen to Obamacare. The only alternative I can see would be to reverse it entirely.
There are several She's kind of exploring that avenue. Once current Baby is old enough(he's 3.5 months old, slept for 9 hours straight for the first time last night!) she's htinking of doing a "women only" home game/in store game to try and make friends with more women gamers.
We're both worried it would be kind of awkward to invite a total stranger, who's a woman, over to our house with the guise of "Hey, want to spend Friday night hanging out in our basement with a bunch of guys you don't know, and this one girl you barely know?"
The only purpose I see districts serving these days is giving the federal government a geographic boundary work with, for which it can give that specific geographic area or people with in specific things. "things" being legislation, assistance, etc. Districts also play a role in how the government distributes stuff nationwide, so its useful for those functions. Again, I think districts are bad for the voting process.
Districts, when done properly instead of gerrymandered for political purposes, ensure that significantly more voices are represented in the legislative body than the majority. Without districts, each state would effectively be represented only by the largest population density areas of their state. Michigan's voters in Northern Michigan / the UP would be overwhelmed by the voter's in Detroit for example. Removal of districts entirely would all but ensure the "tyranny of the majority".
I'm not saying districting isn't a problem as it currently stands -- gerrymandering does have flaws. But removal of districts entirely is not the solution.
It's also not an accurate statement of Orthodox teaching.
Bitterroot is an Attorney.
The entire point of this discussion is to discuss how it should work. If you don't feel like it's worth participating, you are free to leave.
I have a friend who does wedding photography on the side (his main job is as an IT manager). Is he a business or an individual?
[For the record, this isn't a hypothetical, I do have a friend in that situation. Granted he's not in Indiana so is unaffected by the law, but if MA passed the same law which would he be?]
I wouldn't say that I've seen anyone calling "Jackie" a liar. I have seen people calling Erdly a liar, and (in my opinion), rightfully so.
I may be misinterpreting you, but that *isn't* actually a distinction between the Indiana law and the Federal Law. As we learned in the hobby Lobby case. Like I said though, I may be misinterpreting what you are saying here.
I think some distinction needs to be drawn here -- when referring to the wedding cake example we're not referring to a bakery selling an off the shelf cake. We're referring to a custom designed and decorated cake. A bakery that is just supplying you with an off the shelf cake can't justifiably claim that their provision of the cake includes an implicit acceptance and approval of the practice.
Another thing that is easy to notice is the areas where refusal is arguably justifiable all involve some form of personal service / intimate connection with the subject matter. Making and providing a wedding cake is significantly more involved than just "providing a cake".
The real question being asked here is "When is discrimination acceptable" -- To that I'd say, discrimination is acceptable when it is not based on an intrinsic quality unrelated to the decision being made.
A homeless guy vs. a guy in a tailored Armani suit walking into a Ferrari dealership? Acceptable to discriminate.
A Black guy vs. a White guy, both in tailored Armani suits walking into a Ferrari dealership? Not Acceptable.
It becomes a much stickier wicket when something *looks* like discrimination, and *feels* like discrimination to the person being refused service, when the motivation for refusal is not discriminatory.
Example: When I was a lifeguard, we had a two story water slide. Naturally, there was a height requirement on riders. We would frequently have to turn kids away at the top when their parents didn't read the sign, or thought they didn't need to follow it. Rarely, a kid would just run up and onto the slide. In which case we would need to jump in, pull them out etc. One day, while I was the guard at the bottom of the slide I hear a shout from the top, and I know that some kid did just that. I prepped myself, jumped in, pulled the kid out, and gave the parents a stern talking to, and instructed them that the kid wasn't allowed anywhere near the slide for the rest of the day.
10 minutes later a Black women and her son ignored the sign, and got turned away at the top. She proceeded to yell about how we had let the white boy go down the slide, and weren't letting her son go down. Obvious racism is obvious. I had to explain to her that we didn't *let* the other boy go down the slide, he went down against the rules, and I had to jump in and pull him out of the water. And that he was banned from even going near the slide for the rest of the day because of it.
In this situation, what happened was not racist discrimination. But, from the perspective of the black women and her son it sure felt like it, and she was angry about it. What we need to be capable of when banning discrimination is that we are banning discriminatory practices, not practices that *feel* like discrimination when they aren't.
So, we then have to turn the question to the Indiana law. Is refusing to cater/photograph/whatever a gay marriage reception discrimination, or is it more analogous to the situation that feels like discrimination but has a different underlying reason?
I think the distinction should be drawn as follows: If the caterer/photographer/whatever is willing to cater/photograph/whatever gay functions, or functions involving gay individuals, but they refuse gay weddings specifically, then there is a strong argument that their underlying reason is not "because they are gay", but is rather because they believe providing that service will implicitly indicate that they approve of gay weddings. If however, the refusal of service extends beyond that and applies to anyone who is openly gay and the service refused is for any function then it can be assumed that the refusal is no longer a principled stand against gay marriage, and has become a principled stand against gay people, which is improper.
The follow up is, of course, is a principled stand against gay marriage any different than a principled stand against gay people.
Discrimination:
It looks like what we really have here is both meanings are correct. Thus, it is important to use contextual clues as to what meaning is being used. Also, it's bad from to assert your definition is the only one, when your source has multiple definitions listed.
No he didn't. Moving into Afghanistan was the correct move, and was the correct country. Iraq was a separate issue (albeit very close in timing), and I think it's a fair criticism that he was trying to finish his dad's war when it wasn't necessary. But the administration at least never tried to make it about 9/11. It was about the WMD's (that turned out not to exist).
Which is another point -- W had faulty intelligence. That combined with Saddam's play of "calling our bluff" when we demanded to inspect, led to an (incorrect) certainty that wmd's actually existed. In other words, yes it was a bad move and was predicated on false konwledge, but it wasn't made up knowledge and W wasn't "lying" to the country.
Lets be fair here, of those things the only one that is directly W's responsibility is the Iraq situation. The patriot act and the overzealousness of the TSA are both the result of sweeping bipartisanship, and Citizen's United was a supreme court decision.
I guess the summation is: Just like I don't think everything that is happening now can be blamed on Obama (Thanks Obama!), I don't think everything that happened then can be blamed on W.
that's not to say W was a "great" president. Or even necessarily a "good" president. I just don't think he was a "bad" president.
Wihtout going into too many details, I think the results of this case will be a somewhat tortured analysis that comes to the conclusion that federal exchanges are state exchanges because the federal government is doing it "for the states". I think that's a bad route to go down, but I don't see SCOTUS allowing something this devastating to happen to Obamacare. The only alternative I can see would be to reverse it entirely.
Thoughts?
We're both worried it would be kind of awkward to invite a total stranger, who's a woman, over to our house with the guise of "Hey, want to spend Friday night hanging out in our basement with a bunch of guys you don't know, and this one girl you barely know?"
Districts, when done properly instead of gerrymandered for political purposes, ensure that significantly more voices are represented in the legislative body than the majority. Without districts, each state would effectively be represented only by the largest population density areas of their state. Michigan's voters in Northern Michigan / the UP would be overwhelmed by the voter's in Detroit for example. Removal of districts entirely would all but ensure the "tyranny of the majority".
I'm not saying districting isn't a problem as it currently stands -- gerrymandering does have flaws. But removal of districts entirely is not the solution.
Oh, I know it's not going to happen. Its a shame, but it is what it is.