|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 24, 2015 7:40:49 GMT
Two wrongs dont make a right, but two Wrights make aircraft fly.....
My problem is being accused and found guilty in a court in Utah when I never bloody well been there in the first place.
This is from personal experience...
I had a court case for a speeding ticket I was contesting a few years back, and my Solicitors main defense was "When questioned the suspect had to look on a map to find out where that was, and being that he is a commercial vehicle driver, not knowing says a lot... and the fact he has Tachograph evidence showing him finishing a shift a few hours earlier at the other end of the country, unless his car could do 200mph for two hours straight, I doubt it could have been him...."
Case dismissed, and not the only time a tachograph has saved me from prosecution.
On one, the speeding camera showed me at 75mph in a 50 zone.
"Not only does the tachograph show the vehicle not exceeding 40mph for around an hour straight about that time, I can also assure you, the vehicle is not capable of doing over 55mph on a good day with a wind in the right direction.".
That was a written plea of not guilty I entered on that occasion....
Never heard back.
But I digress, false accusations are what is the main topic on this thread at the moment...
I have to answer them on almost a weekly basis.
Eg, "Did you take a break late on [x] day".
No.
I always take my breaks early, so I dont even need to look at the tacho "evidence"
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 24, 2015 8:01:50 GMT
I absolutely agree on the slavery angle, and with the reasonable limitations. If I am selling apples, and prejudiced against gingers, and a ginger tries to buy an apple, then I do not find it unreasonable to be prohibited from refusing to sell an apple off my shelf.
on the other hand, if I make custom quilts, and am opposed to the use of marijuana, and someone comes in and asks me to make a quilt decorated with marijuana symbology, then I would consider being forced to accept that order to be a violation of my core values, and as such a violation of my religious freedom.
so - to address the gay wedding cake example: if a person were to believe that God disapproves of homosexual behavior, and believe that marriage implies God's blessing on a couple - then by asking them to participate in a wedding between a homosexual couple is essentially demanding they confer God's blessing on the behavior they believe God disapproves of - which would be a violation of their core values. - and it is one of those things that they may have no problem whatsoever with selling a birthday cake to a gay couple - because that is not asking them to express tacit approval of the behavior.
Am I expressing that clearly? May I bring you all to my own personal love of my own trade, the art of being a Publican. "Reasonable" I have learnt a lot from behind the bar, and most of it is how to keep people happy, even when you are saying no to them. In that, Legally, if I choose not to serve someone, I must have reasonable reason... "I dont serve your race" is Racist, and not reasonable. "We have a dress code and you are not wearing a shirt" is a reasonable reason. If you do not wish to serve someone, have a bunch of reasonable reasons on hand.... I was asked to cater for an event that I found "Questionable" [an 18th birthday party...*] My excuse was "Sorry due to staff holidays I cant manage that day" Along with a string of other [Diary bookings] for other alternative dates, I managed to persuade them I was not available for that event. [*]18th birthdays. They always have "friends" who aint 18 yet... You always get the underage trying to get served. Those who dont will also try to smuggle in their own supplies. Legally I am responsible for them even though I did not supply them with alcohol... Therefore, I do not cater for them. I have now adopted an Under 25 rule that prevents even the 18yr olds being served, or holding a private event on the premises. If your own religious beliefs prevent you attending (in any way) a Homosexual event, Be Polite. A simple "I am out of town on that day" will suffice. Its not your beliefs that they object to, its your "public" [xyz]-o-phobia. There have been times I have had reasons to object to Driving for certain firms. One of them was one implicated in the recent Horse meat scandal... I have a set of stock reasons for not driving. My favorite is "My Kid has a hospital appointment on that day", and they cant disprove that, as I have more than one Kid, and supplying further details is against data protection laws. So in conclusion, use of the "I cant make them the cake because I dont agree with their event" incited a case of homophobia against them. If they had simply said "We are fully booked", they could have used the excuse "It was canceled at a late date" when someone drives past and sees the shop closed and them not working that day?... Be inventive, but dont use anything that an be used as insulting by anyoneAnd be reasonable. No one can force you to work against your beliefs, but are your beliefs worth a court case, when a little white lie can keep everyone busy elsewhere..... |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Mar 24, 2015 9:48:09 GMT
so - to address the gay wedding cake example: if a person were to believe that God disapproves of homosexual behavior, and believe that marriage implies God's blessing on a couple - then by asking them to participate in a wedding between a homosexual couple is essentially demanding they confer God's blessing on the behavior they believe God disapproves of - which would be a violation of their core values. - and it is one of those things that they may have no problem whatsoever with selling a birthday cake to a gay couple - because that is not asking them to express tacit approval of the behavior. Am I expressing that clearly? One thing I always found ironic about that whole thing is that they could have completely avoided any issues by saying "I'm sorry, we cannot accept your order a this time because we are overbooked with other customers and cannot give your wedding the attention it deserves. May we suggest you contact xyz?" If they had done that, no one would have batted an eye. But instead, they decided it was more important to make a political statement. And then they are surprised when people disagree with their politics. You don't even have to lie about why you don't want to take the order. You would need to think (I know that most people have trouble with that) about your wording, but I'm sure there are plenty of ways to truthfully turn down a job with out it turning polotical. That is part of running a business, knowing when and HOW to say no. On top of being stupid with running a business, I am pretty sure that by putting your religion on a pedestal like that, you are not showing the humility that Christ taught. Teachings that you claim to be defending. You are defiantly not loving all fellow man. They were more interested in standing up for their religion than actually following it. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 24, 2015 12:55:34 GMT
For devout Christians, lying is usually considered a big no-no, as Satan is the "Father of Lies". Truth is highly praised both the Old and New Testament. So, even white lies are forbidden according to some.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 24, 2015 13:56:29 GMT
so - to address the gay wedding cake example: if a person were to believe that God disapproves of homosexual behavior, and believe that marriage implies God's blessing on a couple - then by asking them to participate in a wedding between a homosexual couple is essentially demanding they confer God's blessing on the behavior they believe God disapproves of - which would be a violation of their core values. - and it is one of those things that they may have no problem whatsoever with selling a birthday cake to a gay couple - because that is not asking them to express tacit approval of the behavior. Am I expressing that clearly? One thing I always found ironic about that whole thing is that they could have completely avoided any issues by saying "I'm sorry, we cannot accept your order a this time because we are overbooked with other customers and cannot give your wedding the attention it deserves. May we suggest you contact xyz?" If they had done that, no one would have batted an eye. But instead, they decided it was more important to make a political statement. And then they are surprised when people disagree with their politics. You don't even have to lie about why you don't want to take the order. You would need to think (I know that most people have trouble with that) about your wording, but I'm sure there are plenty of ways to truthfully turn down a job with out it turning polotical. That is part of running a business, knowing when and HOW to say no. On top of being stupid with running a business, I am pretty sure that by putting your religion on a pedestal like that, you are not showing the humility that Christ taught. Teachings that you claim to be defending. You are defiantly not loving all fellow man. They were more interested in standing up for their religion than actually following it. that gets into the area of doctrine - but if I went into a Halal deli and demanded a ham sandwich, I would not accuse them of lacking humility for refusing to sell me ham, nor would I accuse them of not loving me. I would, however, "accuse" them of standing up for their religious beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 24, 2015 14:28:56 GMT
that gets into the area of doctrine - but if I went into a Halal deli and demanded a ham sandwich, I would not accuse them of lacking humility for refusing to sell me ham, nor would I accuse them of not loving me. I would, however, "accuse" them of standing up for their religious beliefs. Not really a fair analogy. What if they DID sell ham sandwiches to some customers but refused to sell one to you? That's like saying someone comes to you and asks you to install a new toilet in their house. You refuse based on the fact that you're an electrician, not a plumber. But what if an abortion clinic calls and asks you to come and replace an outlet? If you are strongly opposed to abortions should you be legally forced to do that job? As a private contractor, I don't think you should be forced to do a job you don't want to do. Now what if that abortion clinic is on fire? As a fire fighter, you can not refuse to respond to that call just because you are opposed to abortions. In this case, you are being paid to perform a public service. You shouldn't be able to pick and choose. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 24, 2015 14:58:11 GMT
that gets into the area of doctrine - but if I went into a Halal deli and demanded a ham sandwich, I would not accuse them of lacking humility for refusing to sell me ham, nor would I accuse them of not loving me. I would, however, "accuse" them of standing up for their religious beliefs. Not really a fair analogy. What if they DID sell ham sandwiches to some customers but refused to sell one to you? That's like saying someone comes to you and asks you to install a new toilet in their house. You refuse based on the fact that you're an electrician, not a plumber. But what if an abortion clinic calls and asks you to come and replace an outlet? If you are strongly opposed to abortions should you be legally forced to do that job? As a private contractor, I don't think you should be forced to do a job you don't want to do. Now what if that abortion clinic is on fire? As a fire fighter, you can not refuse to respond to that call just because you are opposed to abortions. In this case, you are being paid to perform a public service. You shouldn't be able to pick and choose. still not a good analogy. a better one would be if I am opposed to medical marijuana, and I am called to do work in a (legal) medical marijuana grow operation. another might be if, a year ago, you were a Broncos fan, (and a baker) and someone wanted you to make a victory celebration cake for the Seahawks. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 24, 2015 15:43:05 GMT
When it gets to core religious beliefs, analogies break down quickly.
If you believe that by performing your service/providing your product to someone, you may be sending them or yourself (or both) to eternal damnation, it becomes tricky, to say the least.
Many religious people have died in horrible ways defending their faith. The Roman Coliseum comes to mind.
It's not always a matter of "I hate them sinners". It's frequently a matter of "It's a serious sin if I do this".
To the deeply devout, what happens in this life isn't important--preparing for the next is.
There really isn't a good comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 24, 2015 15:48:42 GMT
When it gets to core religious beliefs, analogies break down quickly. If you believe that by performing your service/providing your product to someone, you may be sending them or yourself (or both) to eternal damnation, it becomes tricky, to say the least. Many religious people have died in horrible ways defending their faith. The Roman Coliseum comes to mind. It's not always a matter of "I hate them sinners". It's frequently a matter of "It's a serious sin if I do this". To the deeply devout, what happens in this life isn't important--preparing for the next is. There really isn't a good comparison. Why does it have to be only on religious grounds? You could be opposed to the death penalty, or gay marriage on strictly your moral beliefs and not based on religion. I know some atheist that are opposed to abortion on demand and religion has nothing to do with it. |
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Mar 24, 2015 16:17:06 GMT
The big question is, can you refuse to bake a cake for gays(discriminating in my opinion at least).
or
Refuse a cake that contains a gay message of some kind(perfectly fine as far as i am concerned)
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 24, 2015 16:20:15 GMT
another might be if, a year ago, you were a Broncos fan, (and a baker) and someone wanted you to make a victory celebration cake for the Seahawks. An even better analogy would be if the Bronco's fan went in to order the Seahawk victory cake only because he KNEW the baker was a Bronco's fan and just wanted to antagonize him. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 24, 2015 18:52:43 GMT
The big question is, can you refuse to bake a cake for gays(discriminating in my opinion at least). or Refuse a cake that contains a gay message of some kind(perfectly fine as far as i am concerned) Ecactly. Saying "I won't make a wedding cake for a gay wedding because of my beliefs, but I'll gladly make you a birthday cake or sell you anything else I have on the shelves" is not the same as saying "I won't sell you anything because I hate gays, so get out of my store". One is downright discrimination, while the other is just refusing to take an active part in something you don't condone. There's a world of difference between those two things. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 25, 2015 1:14:07 GMT
When it gets to core religious beliefs, analogies break down quickly. If you believe that by performing your service/providing your product to someone, you may be sending them or yourself (or both) to eternal damnation, it becomes tricky, to say the least. Many religious people have died in horrible ways defending their faith. The Roman Coliseum comes to mind. It's not always a matter of "I hate them sinners". It's frequently a matter of "It's a serious sin if I do this". To the deeply devout, what happens in this life isn't important--preparing for the next is. There really isn't a good comparison. Why does it have to be only on religious grounds? You could be opposed to the death penalty, or gay marriage on strictly your moral beliefs and not based on religion. I know some atheist that are opposed to abortion on demand and religion has nothing to do with it. I consider morals to be a product of religious beliefs, even if your belief is that there is no religion. - which is to say I consider them to be protected under the first amendment. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 25, 2015 3:03:42 GMT
I consider morals to be a product of religious beliefs, even if your belief is that there is no religion. - which is to say I consider them to be protected under the first amendment. Not so sure I follow that logic, but if it works for you... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 25, 2015 3:45:23 GMT
I consider morals to be a product of religious beliefs, even if your belief is that there is no religion. - which is to say I consider them to be protected under the first amendment. Not so sure I follow that logic, but if it works for you... bottom line, I consider moral standards to be protected under the first amendment - though not necessarily the right to force others to comply. (the exceptions would include such moral lapses as murder.) |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 25, 2015 4:11:29 GMT
Not so sure I follow that logic, but if it works for you... bottom line, I consider moral standards to be protected under the first amendment - though not necessarily the right to force others to comply. (the exceptions would include such moral lapses as murder.) Morals aren't listed as a specific "right" under the 1 st, but if you did want to tie them to freedoms granted under the 1 st, I think tying them to free speech would be a better approach. The problem with tying them to religion is that some religions consider it "moral" to stone homosexuals, suppress and mutilate women, and kill your daughters if they stray from your religion. Don't think we need to protect those "morals" as freedom to practice a religion. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 25, 2015 4:16:11 GMT
bottom line, I consider moral standards to be protected under the first amendment - though not necessarily the right to force others to comply. (the exceptions would include such moral lapses as murder.) Morals aren't listed as a specific "right" under the 1 st, but if you did want to tie them to freedoms granted under the 1 st, I think tying them to free speech would be a better approach. The problem with tying them to religion is that some religions consider it "moral" to stone homosexuals, suppress and mutilate women, and kill your daughters if they stray from your religion. Don't think we need to protect those "morals" as freedom to practice a religion. no, they want a religious law allowing them to do those things - which the first amendment prohibits. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 25, 2015 4:17:35 GMT
Morals aren't listed as a specific "right" under the 1 st, but if you did want to tie them to freedoms granted under the 1 st, I think tying them to free speech would be a better approach. The problem with tying them to religion is that some religions consider it "moral" to stone homosexuals, suppress and mutilate women, and kill your daughters if they stray from your religion. Don't think we need to protect those "morals" as freedom to practice a religion. no, they want a religious law allowing them to do those things - which the first amendment prohibits. You don't need a "right" to be moral. It's more an obligation. If anything, many see the Constitution as a right to be immoral. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 25, 2015 4:33:06 GMT
no, they want a religious law allowing them to do those things - which the first amendment prohibits. You don't need a "right" to be moral. It's more an obligation. If anything, many see the Constitution as a right to be immoral. to you it is an obligation. to other people it might be offensive, and they might decide they want to make a law against it. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 25, 2015 4:43:51 GMT
You don't need a "right" to be moral. It's more an obligation. If anything, many see the Constitution as a right to be immoral. to you it is an obligation. to other people it might be offensive, and they might decide they want to make a law against it. And that, they do. No need to cite examples. |
|
