Posts by JeffT

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

JeffT

V

Our attorney general says that under the under the Washington State Consumer Protection Act it is against the law to discriminate against your customers based on religion, race, creed, and sexual orientation. Since this is the law he's using to crack down on Arlene's Flowers, I'm going to take him at his word.

I operate a small consulting business, which I would like to keep going. I'm not going to buck the AG's office on a dubious claim from somebody that doesn't even live here that it is legal to discriminate against customers that belong to a religion I don't like.

You can operate your business how ever you like. Mine doesn't engage in identity discrimination.

67

How do you feel about religion as a whole?

by FatherFirst in

it just seems to me religion in general primarily makes truly bad people worse, not genuinly good people better; and in many cases has even made good people do bad things in the name of their religion.

just curious, a personal poll if you will.

what are you guys' current views on religion as a whole?

JeffT

Fatherfirst, I don't know if today's good outweighs yesterday's bad. I'm sure the people who live in Tent City appreciate having a place to live. Seattle is a very liberal city, and one of the most unchurched. Yet it is the churches that are largely meeting this need.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tent_city#Seattle.2C_Washington

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tent_City_4

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

JeffT

"What, specific law do you think talks about all customers and not people based on protected classes?"

What I think is irrelevant. The State Attorney General said "Our law against discrimination prevents you from discriminating on the basis of race or religion or, since 2006, sexual orientation. If you do that in a consumer setting, you're automatically violating our consumer protection laws," (source cited in my earlier post). If you think you know more than the attorney General, please enlighten me.

However, I think he was referring to RCW 49.60.030

I said I am opposed to discrimination at all levels, for whatever reason.

You said: I am not.

Now you get to answer a question: Do you think discrimination based on some one's group identity is morally proper in some cases. If yes, which ones?

Since I expect some one will throw this back at me; yes, I think discrimination based on group identity is wrong in all cases. Yes I know, that means the Christians are wrong when they discriminate against the LGBTQ* community.

I also don't think the LGBTQ* community does itself any favors by making discriminatory statements back. There are some open minded churches around. I frequently drive by a Methodist church in downtown Bellevue WA that has a flag very like this on the facade: Image result for god is still speaking rainbow

They deserve to be recognized for standing apart on this issue.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

JeffT

The Washington State Attorney General seems to think the state's consumer protection laws protect against discrimination based on, among other things, religion. I would go with his opinion, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

http://www.nbcrightnow.com/story/24898674/wa-attorney-general-discusses-arlenes-flowers-discrimination-case

I assume your second post is aimed at somebody else, but I'll comment anyway. The 14th amendment clearly applies to everybody. The choice available to civil servants is to not be civil servants. I also think this applies to any minister who signs marriage certificates. If they sign any, they needs to sign all of them.

Let me make myself plain. I am opposed to discrimination at all levels, for whatever reason. I am also, frankly very terrified off putting too much power into the hands of the government to control "thought crime." It starts us down a very slippery slope.

I don't think passing a law making bigotry illegal is the same thing as ending bigotry, people will just hide it. Twenty-five years ago, I believed that homosexuals deserved whatever they got. Now I'm paying for a lesbian wedding (which BTW I'm very glad is legal in the two States involved). Arriving at this change of opinion took a long time and a lot of soul searching. I'm quite sure the owner of Arlene's flowers will never change her mind on the subject, and certainly her treatment over the last two years will do nothing to encourage her to change her mind.

As they say, its easier to catch flies with honey.

29

March Broadcast- Jehovah is speeding up the work

by adjusted knowledge in

jw
friends

i watched some of the segments on the jw broadcast.

in the video they showed how they managed their inventory orders for the congregations.

at the conclusion it was stated by the narrator how god is speeding up the work.. the problem is the system they implemented has been used for over two decades in logistics.

JeffT

I can't find a clip of it but in Star Trek TOS there's a scene where somebody (or something, I think the computer) takes over the Enterprise. Because of a conflict about the destination, the ship ends up going in circles, at which point Scotty says "and at Warp 20 we're going nowhere fast." Might be a good description of the WTBS.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

JeffT

How is that in any way the same thing?

It's the same thing because Washington State law requires companies serving the public to provide identical services to all customers and potential customers that seek to do business with them. You can't discriminate based on what you think of the customer.

General comment, but particularly DJS needs to read this, since he apparently didn't pay attention to my post about my daughter. I am opposed to discrimination against lots of people, including, but not limited to people located anywhere on the gender spectrum, any religious belief or none, any race etc. I am not now a member of any religious group, nor have I been for at least six years.

I just think a few people here would be well served by thinking through the possible results of actions they want taken. It seems that some of you are in such a rush to fence in a group you have made it obvious you don't like; that you can't see who else might get scooped up in your net.

Maybe I should stop expecting you to think about any position but your own.

67

How do you feel about religion as a whole?

by FatherFirst in

it just seems to me religion in general primarily makes truly bad people worse, not genuinly good people better; and in many cases has even made good people do bad things in the name of their religion.

just curious, a personal poll if you will.

what are you guys' current views on religion as a whole?

JeffT

Anything that brings a big bunch of people together will produce both good and bad results; religion, politics, soccer, pop music, freeways, beer, you name it. I don't think painting entire groups with one big brush is helpful.

Here in Seattle we have had, for many years, a roaming tent encampment for homeless people that are allowed to set up at certain locations for a period of time. Many, if not most, of those locations have been in church parking lots. For a very long time one was set up next to a church that let us use their fellowship hall for an AA meeting. The camp was clean, safe, quiet and well run. For that matter, the AA group had an inexpensive place to meet.

So who here wants to provide an alternative location for these two groups?

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

JeffT

People keep citing the Arlene's Flowers case here in Washington State as an example of Christians wanting to refuse service to Gays. I think a little background is in order. The owner of the flower shop had been doing business with the gay couple for a number of years, knew they were gay and even sold them flowers for events like birthdays for each other. When approached to supply flowers for the wedding, she declined but referred them to another local florist who could comfortably meet their needs. They filed the lawsuit and the fireworks started.

https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/ingersoll-v-arlenes-flowers

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2015/02/20/3419458/arlenes-flowers-owner-rejects.html

Food for thought: do you want to be required by law to provide whatever you do for a living to a Kingdom Hall?

Edited to add: should she be required by law to provide flowers for this weekend's memorial service, even if she doesn't want to?

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

JeffT

Let's take another example. If the government reinstates the draft, should conscientious objector status based on religious belief be denied?

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

JeffT

I have mixed thoughts on this subject. My daughter is a lesbian married to a transgender woman. They have already been subject to employment discrimination (in Oregon for crying outloud! A lawsuit is under way). They do not need any more such treatment.

On the other hand, I do not believe the government should be ordering people to do things they don't want to do. Ask yourself a question: if you're planning a wedding do you want to put it in the hands of people who are doing it only because the state is threatening them?