Danivon,
I will introspect about what you have said, and get back to you. Thank you for your input. I will take it up with my Lord in prayer...

You generally make reasonable points Sass so there is no need to reply. People tend to get motivated only to respond to posts they (strongly) disagree with. You're going to have to get more disagreeable if you expect to get more replies! Seriously, your input contributes to the discussion here. Your moderate viewpoint is needed to balance the left vs right postings.

Danivon,
Thank you for your questions concerning your claim of my hypocrisy.

I feel as if I am not being hypocritical because I am not not wanting acceptance of of my position by others. If they take it great, if not, so be it. That is, after all, what we speak about here. I do not want you, or anyone, to be expected to accept my position on anything in order to communicate with. That is an echo chamber. I don't like them on the left, or the right. I would hope you would feel the same way (but it is not required, mind you )

Likewise, it is problematic to try to insulate our opinions for an alternative view in the real world. I would not expect a person to try to only interact with people of the same opinion. That is juvenile and does not strengthen our ability to support personal views.

If the couple does not want to do business with the jeweler because of his view, does the jeweler get that same opportunity? No, he does not.

I am fine with the customer not doing business with a store based upon a political view.
I am fine with the store not doing business with a customer based upon a political view.

freeman3 wrote:You generally make reasonable points Sass so there is no need to reply. People tend to get motivated only to respond to posts they (strongly) disagree with. You're going to have to get more disagreeable if you expect to get more replies! Seriously, your input contributes to the discussion here. Your moderate viewpoint is needed to balance the left vs right postings.

Agreed.

I think my biggest area of disagreement with Sass would be on social issues. He may be moderate on them in the UK, but the UK is hardly on the charts in comparison with the US on social matters.

bbauska wrote:I feel as if I am not being hypocritical because I am not not wanting acceptance of of my position by others. If they take it great, if not, so be it. That is, after all, what we speak about here. I do not want you, or anyone, to be expected to accept my position on anything in order to communicate with. That is an echo chamber. I don't like them on the left, or the right. I would hope you would feel the same way (but it is not required, mind you )

Ok...

So basically you are not doing the same thing as the couple because you are assuming that they want acceptance of their position by others.

Is that what they want?

Or is it to be able to undo the support they gave to a vendor now that they know that they dislike the vendor's publicly expressed view?

How do you know what they want, beyond what they say they want?

Likewise, it is problematic to try to insulate our opinions for an alternative view in the real world. I would not expect a person to try to only interact with people of the same opinion. That is juvenile and does not strengthen our ability to support personal views.

Maybe not, but there are opinions which we would all take as ones that cross the line. I would not want to interact with a fascist.

If the couple does not want to do business with the jeweler because of his view, does the jeweler get that same opportunity? No, he does not.

Well, at the moment, they have already done business, want to reverse that and so far have only asked for a refund and made public their views.

I was not pointing out the difference in your views (this is a difference of standards, not double standards). I was pointing out that what they have done is to express something that you disagree with, in a form you disagree with.

They have not tried to "force" anyone to do anything.

And all they were doing really

I am fine with the customer not doing business with a store based upon a political view.
I am fine with the store not doing business with a customer based upon a political view.

You have said that before. it's not why I think you were applying double standards.

Whether you expect to be "accepted" or not, what you are doing here is to express the opinion that these lesbians' opinion is wrong, or wrongly expressed.

Well, all they have done is express their opinion that the jewellers' opinion is wrong, or wrongly expressed.

And all the jewellers have done is to express their opinion that the lobby for gay marriage is wrong.

You know what?

You are all wrong. You, the lesbians, the jewellers. Gay marriage does not undermine marriage. Saying it does is not discrimination. Asking for your money back is not "forcing" people to accept the "extreme left" agenda.

Maybe I am wrong too, but hey, this silliness has to stop somewhere.

You still have failed to explain what your comments about people being forced to shop at places, or forbidden to, have to do with the topic. Can I assume you have removed those from consideration?

Danivon,
I am going to end this "silliness" as you put it with this. I do not know what the couple feels.

I do not want to endlessly parade up and down the same boulevard about gay marriage. My point was about the couple regretting and wanting to void the transaction because a jeweler does not agree with them.

Neither of us have the first inkling what the ladies are thinking, feeling or any other way. We can only judge their actions.

Consider this forum done from my side.

I think my biggest area of disagreement with Sass would be on social issues. He may be moderate on them in the UK, but the UK is hardly on the charts in comparison with the US on social matters.

This is undoubtedly true, but even by US standards I suspect that my views would fall somewhere on the moderate side of the spectrum. I'm comfortable with abortion and gay marriage without being a rabid advocate for either. I defend the right of individuals to make potentially discriminatory choices in some (but not all) instances, such as the example I talked about earlier, based on their faith, even though I'm an atheist. I don't agree with affirmative action. I oppose most forms of political correctness.

Danivon and myself, although we seem to get on pretty well personally, disagree on just about everything. I'm sure he finds it every bit as amusing as I do that we both end up getting bracketed together by the Redscape fraternity...

Sassenach wrote:Danivon and myself, although we seem to get on pretty well personally, disagree on just about everything. I'm sure he finds it every bit as amusing as I do that we both end up getting bracketed together by the Redscape fraternity...

Aye. Which reminds me, how do we organise getting around some pints together?

Aye. Which reminds me, how do we organise getting around some pints together?

I dunno. I'd certainly be up for it, but finding the time may be tricky. I assume you don't get up north very often.

Sassenach wrote:

Aye. Which reminds me, how do we organise getting around some pints together?

I dunno. I'd certainly be up for it, but finding the time may be tricky. I assume you don't get up north very often.

Not really. I was in Whitby/York before Easter, and I would be in Hull in a couple of weeks for Yorkshire DipCon if our baby wasn't imminent. I know you don't like Cons much, but ManorCon is holding the EDC in July as well as being a weekend of many other boardgames. I will make that.


But I can do. You venture south to the Midlands much? Said baby may make my travel plans a little harder over the next few years...

I'll be in Nottingham sometime towards the end of August to see my sister (not finalised dates for that yet). Could potentially fit something in around then I suppose. We'll have to play it by ear and see what's possible.

OK, here is another example of religious freedom and other attitudes clashing - and in this case actually the law is more likely to be involved.

Imagine in the UK, in London in fact, a hardline religious group (who are based abroad but have a community in a particular area) have two schools - one for boys and one for girls - that take kids 3-16 and cater for the sect in the community. These are not state funded and so are independent of our state system (but still subject to inspection for standards and safety etc).

Recently, the leader of the group (overseas) has decreed that women should not drive cars. Which has been taken up by the sect and applied by the schools - they have banned mothers from driving to the schools to drop off or pick up kids.

In the UK, we would see this as discriminatory to women (fine to choose not to drive, not fine to have a school forbid it), and also risks a child's right to education: the sect has said that if mothers drive a kid to the school, the child will be turned away because the mother had broken "traditional rules of modesty". Exceptions only by submitting a request to a special committee of school leaders who will consider whether the need is great enough.

Now, should we as a society tolerate the religious wish to discriminate in this way? Should a government agency - as has happened - suggest that this is illegal and so potentially take action? Or should they butt out of the free choice of the religious community?

Tell me your opinion, Owen. I would love to hear it.

danivon wrote:Now, should we as a society tolerate the religious wish to discriminate in this way? Should a government agency - as has happened - suggest that this is illegal and so potentially take action? Or should they butt out of the free choice of the religious community?

Yes, you should tolerate it.

There is nothing so egregious here that violates human rights. We're not talking slavery or some heinous crime, or even a crime at all.

Furthermore, the woman could leave the religion whenever she chooses.

Now, is this a real-life example (as I suspect)?

bbauska wrote:Tell me your opinion, Owen. I would love to hear it.

my opinion is that no, we should not tolerate anything simply because it is founded in religion. And banning women from driving, using their kid's education as a pawn in that ban, does affect the rights of the women to their own religious opinion, and of children to get education uninterrupted.

Your opinion?