It is only when either religious fundamentalism or secularism are forced on the unwilling that the need to reconcile anything arises.
No, it's when the religious are told that they cannot impose their lifestyle on other people's. It is rarely secularists that are refusing to serve someone or do something. It's always inevitably the religious.
And then they sue.
It's contrived, like they look for opportunities "to be oppressed" so they can get a pay day.
This JW wasn't trying to make a law forcing this off the menu for everyone.
No, just not provide that part of the menu - same result. Same as someone refusing to issue marriage licenses for gay people.
She wasn't even fired and then suing saying it was religious persecution. The story is that she asked someone else to care for it. It is the employer's right to fire her if they don't find this a reasonable accommodation. The peanut gallery calling for her termination are being bigots. That is my view.
I don't think it makes sense. It sounds to me like they had enough of her. Imagine a chef who won't do the job. What they hell are they supposed to do? Everyone else has to do her job for her but she still get's paid? Why? Walk away if you don't want to do it. Claims moral objections but then doesn't do the moral thing.
That same point (sexuality) was raised by Cofty. I simply cannot understand it.
That's because it's a good point and because you refuse to.
I know it was, for reasons passing understanding, important to some people to find out that homosexuality is genetic. I never understood in the slightest why it should matter.
It doesn't, you are simply trying to distract attention and muddy the issue.
Why not respect accommodate and love someone regardless of whether it is a choice or not? I mean, really, if it were a choice would that make it OK to have homophobia?
No, and that is the point. Why does the choice of religion make any form of discrimination OK?
"I don't like gay people" / "OMG, I can't believe how bigoted you are!" / "My religion" / "Oh, that's OK then, carry on".
Sorry, no.
Can you imagine if someone pointed out the reason why you don't discriminate against black people is because they had no choice? Like they are flawed, but what the heck, it isn't like the could choose it.
Exactly why you should not be allowed to discriminate against anyone because of who they are, whatever lame justification you come up with. And applying that exact same lame justification to anything else makes it no more valid.
Homosexuality, race, religion, politics, and gender are all part of the great mosaic of society.
Unless you are religious.
But I would say that, raised and indoctrinated as a Canadian.
Someone who really respects freedoms because they are the right thing doesn't call it "indoctrination".
Maybe "taught" or "educated" or "informed"? This to me is a sign that you can say some of the right words to suit your argument but you may not really live and feel them.
Freedom of religion was an early right in the long march of human rights, not far behind property rights. Having laid the ground work for many rights which have come after, the notion to throw it away is repugnant to me.
No, religion has often been the log jam in the way of freedoms (except for those of the in-power religious of course) and wanting to deny other people their freedoms. We owe non of our freedoms to religion. We took so long to grant so many because religion was used to excuse bigotry time and time and time again.
That's why it's important to fight over every inch because if it is a constant effort by certain groups to get exceptions, to be allowed to impose their beliefs, monuments, to get exceptions from the rules that should apply to all.
Cofty asked me why I equate the bigotry. They are opposite sides of the same coin to me, the dislike of the other. Especially when it comes in contact with or in any way inconveniences someone. Even when it doesn't, man oh man people get upset. How does an RCMP member wearing a turbin inconvenience a single person? And yet, man oh man, it was a huge debate years ago.
It's not about dislike. No one gives a shit about the chef as long as they cook the breakfast properly. No one cares what religion she was. No one was going to bother her over her religion. But that wasn't enough for her. She couldn't simply do her job like any other person. She wanted to make it a issue even though, and this is important, THERE IS NOTHING IN HER RELIGION THAT TELLS HER SHE CAN'T DO IT.
*If* she wants to make an issue of something on religious grounds then why can't she produce the official list of beliefs that says "As a member of [whatever faith] I cannot do [xyz], signed [leaders of that religion"?
Why? Because it's always contrived and whatever is convenient to them and always changing to suit which way the wind is blowing.
I know many of my fellow atheists and strong agnostics advocate for a secular public place, for the repression of religious superstition. To me those are dangerous, regressive, and foolish ideas. They are born of the same intolerance for different ideas and lifestyles (whether chosen or inherited).
It's not repression to say keep your beliefs to yourself and out of the workplace. Do whatever the hell you want at church, worship the god you want. But don't try to force your imaginary sky god's likes and dislikes on anyone else - that is repressive and foolish, especially if it involves the right to bacon.
Being intolerant of intolerance is not a bad thing. None are quite so intolerant as the religious.
