Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[marshwiggle]

You may try to hide behind vague terms such as "wokism" (which I only see conservatives using) or try to limit your scope to some strawman about preventing "people from being members based on their orientation specifically" while ignoring the rejection of basic human rights, but the onus is on good people like you, Mahag,

???

to reject the bigotry the same way you would reject, I assume, bans on interracial marriage or public denouncements of race base on dubious readings of Scripture.

I don't need to "reject" those other than by choosing not to belong to a denomination that has them. That's the point.

[Wahoo Redux]

You may try to hide behind vague terms such as "wokism" (which I only see conservatives using) or try to limit your scope to some strawman about preventing "people from being members based on their orientation specifically" while ignoring the rejection of basic human rights, but the onus is on good people like you, Mahag,

???

to reject the bigotry the same way you would reject, I assume, bans on interracial marriage or public denouncements of race base on dubious readings of Scripture.

I don't need to "reject" those other than by choosing not to belong to a denomination that has them. That's the point.

It is also "the point" not to deny that this goes on among Christians.  Don't defend them as you did when you posted

Do you have an example of a denomination that rejects people for their thoughts, rather than their actions?

which doesn't really make a lot of sense since we don't really have access to people's "thoughts" anyway.

Just admit that this kind of bigotry is rampant and justified among many Christian groups.  Don't try and hide behind semiotics or cherrypicked / confabulated rationales. 

Be an Episcopalian.  That denomination overtly rejects homophobia, even if not all its members agree.

[apl68]

I'm not aware of any cases where anybody is trying to use the law to compel gay, atheist, agnostic, etc. to work on Christian-oriented web sites when they have said that they don't want to do so.  But there is a definite move to go to Christian vendors of various services and tell them, in effect, "You will do what we demand of you regardless of what you believe, or we will use the law to hound you out of business."  If the right to do this becomes enshrined in U.S. court precedent, then I predict a fast tumble down a very slippery slope that will force large numbers of Christians with biblical views on marriage to either go against their consciences or be effectively driven out of their chosen businesses or professions, as activists actively go after them.  Looks like a religious freedom issue to me.

[dismalist]

It's worth trying a different perspective on the "forced website case" and others like it, though it is not enshrined in law about these types of cases.

If there is competition in the website service market, the potential customer is not really being hurt by the refusal of service. S/he just goes to the competition. Thus we can safely allow the seller to sell to whom s/he pleases, no matter the discriminatory target.

[This market process, by the way, is why the Southern states of America and the Union of South Africa imposed government enforced apartheid. They knew that competition would drive discriminators to the wall, for the discriminator pays in loss of business.] 

In contrast, if the service is a monopoly, say a single airline serving a remote Alaskan airport, the thing to do is invoke "common carrier" status, forcing the airline to carry people it didn't like, for the cost to a passenger left behind is high.

Personally, I don't believe that making websites or making cakes needs common carrier status. 

[Wahoo Redux]

I'm not aware of any cases where anybody is trying to use the law to compel gay, atheist, agnostic, etc. to work on Christian-oriented web sites when they have said that they don't want to do so.  But there is a definite move to go to Christian vendors of various services and tell them, in effect, "You will do what we demand of you regardless of what you believe, or we will use the law to hound you out of business."  If the right to do this becomes enshrined in U.S. court precedent, then I predict a fast tumble down a very slippery slope that will force large numbers of Christians with biblical views on marriage to either go against their consciences or be effectively driven out of their chosen businesses or professions, as activists actively go after them.  Looks like a religious freedom issue to me.

I agree.  It's frightening to me. 

This whole culture of government and employers dictating our speech and our beliefs is extremely alarming, and that is why I keep this thread ticking.  I focus mostly on college campus issues, and the tower has a controversy or an action somewhere in North America almost every other week.  And these are just what make the news. 

I would much rather the church face the private, personal, vernacular, grass roots opprobrium that it  is already experiencing because it cannot reason its way out of our last acceptable prejudice. 

[marshwiggle]

I'm not aware of any cases where anybody is trying to use the law to compel gay, atheist, agnostic, etc. to work on Christian-oriented web sites when they have said that they don't want to do so.  But there is a definite move to go to Christian vendors of various services and tell them, in effect, "You will do what we demand of you regardless of what you believe, or we will use the law to hound you out of business."  If the right to do this becomes enshrined in U.S. court precedent, then I predict a fast tumble down a very slippery slope that will force large numbers of Christians with biblical views on marriage to either go against their consciences or be effectively driven out of their chosen businesses or professions, as activists actively go after them.  Looks like a religious freedom issue to me.

I agree.  It's frightening to me. 

This whole culture of government and employers dictating our speech and our beliefs is extremely alarming, and that is why I keep this thread ticking.  I focus mostly on college campus issues, and the tower has a controversy or an action somewhere in North America almost every other week.  And these are just what make the news. 

I would much rather the church face the private, personal, vernacular, grass roots opprobrium that it  is already experiencing because it cannot reason its way out of our last acceptable prejudice.

You clearly haven't studied much church history. (And you're very naive if you think this is the "last" issue that will be seen as church "prejudice".)  The church has *constantly gone against the grain of culture in some area or another, except perhaps for cases like the state church in Nazi Germany, that was onside with the government.  Not exactly the example we'd want to emulate......

(*Sometimes, they have eventually changed; other times culture has changed, such as in the case of church opposition to slavery. Being "with" culture or "against" culture is not automatically good or bad; but being able to choose is fundamental to religious freedom.)

[Wahoo Redux]

Former church acolyte here.

I know church history, Marshy, including church acceptance and even embrace of American slavery, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Witch Trials, anti-evolution and anti-science stances throughout history, and, yes, collaboration with the damn Nazis...

...as well as the church saving literacy, charity, and education, and producing hospitals, universities, and some of the greatest art and architecture in the history of the world.

All of which has nothing to do with what I was posting about.

[marshwiggle]

Former church acolyte here.

I know church history, Marshy, including church acceptance and even embrace of American slavery, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Witch Trials, anti-evolution and anti-science stances throughout history, and, yes, collaboration with the damn Nazis...

...as well as the church saving literacy, charity, and education, and producing hospitals, universities, and some of the greatest art and architecture in the history of the world.

All of which has nothing to do with what I was posting about.

All kinds of things that are now acceptable were at one time unacceptable, and all kinds of things that are now unacceptable were at one time acceptable. Only time will tell which way something goes. And, things can swing like a pendulum as well.

Two issues which are rising in the broader culture which will result in the same kind of debate are  polyamorous relationships, and the status of "Minor Attracted Persons", as they wish to be called, and their preferred relationships. Is it bigotry for the church to forbid or otherwise restrict either of those? Does a certain level of public acceptance demand that the church also accept them?

Those are issues which are rising now. I have no idea what the issues will be in 20 years or more, but I can guarantee that there will be issues that are not on the radar now that will be a big deal eventually.

[Wahoo Redux]

Two issues which are rising in the broader culture which will result in the same kind of debate are  polyamorous relationships,

I had to look up "polyamorous relationship."

As long as these are consenting adults, I don't know why the church would object.  We've had polyamorous relationships since as long as we've know about relationships.  Sister wives, anyone?

And this is not the same thing as bigotry, anyway.

and the status of "Minor Attracted Persons", as they wish to be called, and their preferred relationships. Is it bigotry for the church to forbid or otherwise restrict either of those? Does a certain level of public acceptance demand that the church also accept them?

This is where I would suggest you think a little, Marshy...think about it a minute...

"Minor attracted people" is the largely rejected terminology of Allyn Walker, who lost a job over the term I believe.  Walker was suggesting we destigmatize people who admit to having a problem with pedophilia so they can be taught to control their urges.  It did not go over.  Wikipedia does not even have an entry for the idea.  You're just grasping for straws there.  You coughed up a bad analogy.

And there is a profound difference between pedophiles, who are predominantly straight adult males, and LGBTQ people who are consenting adults.

Pedophiles hurt children profoundly.  That is why they are not accepted by churches or anyone else.

Think, Marshy, don't just react.  Think. 

[Anon1787]

Religions generally have their own distinctive views and regulations of marriage, and I don't care if people refuse to create content for marriages on the basis of such beliefs. I do care that people in the grips of isothymia engage in a power play demanding that people create such content in violation of their beliefs simply to make a point when there are many willing providers of such content.

[Wahoo Redux]

Religions generally have their own distinctive views and regulations of marriage, and I don't care if people refuse to create content for marriages on the basis of such beliefs. I do care that people in the grips of isothymia engage in a power play demanding that people create such content in violation of their beliefs simply to make a point when there are many willing providers of such content.

It's a good point.

There is not just one designer out there.  Of course, we must acknowledge that this is easy to say when one is a member of the mainstream, someone who will probably not face exclusion, but that does not make your point less valid.

It would be different if one is excluded from supermarkets or restaurants or hospitals or other places where we get our daily necessities.  I do worry, however, that if the court allows "artists" to exclude a certain message or demographic then we are opening the door for chefs, also "artists," to begin catering to "white only" patrons.  Hopefully culture will react appropriately if that happens.

[kaysixteen]

Forget the freedom of religion issue that apl clearly explains, and with which I agree.   This is also a freedom of speech issue, and can also be seen as a freedom of the press issue.   Put another way, no one would ever say that the local newspaper has to sell any ad to anyone/ group that advocates something of which the paper disapproves.   And this is not only true for generic secular papers, whether the NYT on the one hand or the Bugtussle Bugle on the other, but also it must clearly be true for a religious or otherwise ideologically-driven publication.   Just as no one would say that the Gay Times, just because it does sell ads, must also sell one to Focus on the Family, so we must also acknowledge that the Pentecostal Press must never be compelled to sell ads to ACT UP.   Whether homosexual activists who, like it or not, are trying to make opposition to homosexuality as societally unacceptable, backed up with government force, as overt racism, like it or not.

[marshwiggle]

Two issues which are rising in the broader culture which will result in the same kind of debate are  polyamorous relationships,

I had to look up "polyamorous relationship."

As long as these are consenting adults, I don't know why the church would object.  We've had polyamorous relationships since as long as we've know about relationships.  Sister wives, anyone?

And this is not the same thing as bigotry, anyway.

Why isn't it? The question is whether a church is bigoted in refusing to marry people in a particular category.  Are you saying simply refusing to marry gay couples isn't by itself, bigotry?

And are the churches supporting "sister wives", aka polygamy, being "affirming", or are they being immoral?

and the status of "Minor Attracted Persons", as they wish to be called, and their preferred relationships. Is it bigotry for the church to forbid or otherwise restrict either of those? Does a certain level of public acceptance demand that the church also accept them?

This is where I would suggest you think a little, Marshy...think about it a minute...

"Minor attracted people" is the largely rejected terminology of Allyn Walker, who lost a job over the term I believe.  Walker was suggesting we destigmatize people who admit to having a problem with pedophilia so they can be taught to control their urges.  It did not go over.  Wikipedia does not even have an entry for the idea.  You're just grasping for straws there.  You coughed up a bad analogy.

And there is a profound difference between pedophiles, who are predominantly straight adult males, and LGBTQ people who are consenting adults.

Pedophiles hurt children profoundly.  That is why they are not accepted by churches or anyone else.

I'm sure that some denomination somewhere will, if they don't already, "affirm" this.

This is exactly the point. People who approve of any practice call a church who also approves "affirming" and a church that doesn't "bigoted". The label simply refers to which side the speaker is on.

Religions generally have their own distinctive views and regulations of marriage, and I don't care if people refuse to create content for marriages on the basis of such beliefs. I do care that people in the grips of isothymia engage in a power play demanding that people create such content in violation of their beliefs simply to make a point when there are many willing providers of such content.

It's a good point.

There is not just one designer out there.  Of course, we must acknowledge that this is easy to say when one is a member of the mainstream, someone who will probably not face exclusion, but that does not make your point less valid.

It would be different if one is excluded from supermarkets or restaurants or hospitals or other places where we get our daily necessities.  I do worry, however, that if the court allows "artists" to exclude a certain message or demographic then we are opening the door for chefs, also "artists," to begin catering to "white only" patrons.  Hopefully culture will react appropriately if that happens.

Do you really think that any business that catered to "white only" patrons would survive anywhere but the most isolated communities? The portion of the population who would approve of that would be tiny. (And in an isolated community with no non-white residents, people might roll their eyes but patronize the business because there's no alternative, and given that there is no-one actually being harmed currently.)

[Wahoo Redux]

Why isn't it? The question is whether a church is bigoted in refusing to marry people in a particular category.  Are you saying simply refusing to marry gay couples isn't by itself, bigotry?

Not sure what you are asking.

The denial of marriage rights is an acute symptom of bigotry.

And are the churches supporting "sister wives", aka polygamy, being "affirming", or are they being immoral?

I don't know about "affirming" in this context, but it is only "immoral" if people are abused.  If everybody is happy, what is the problem?

People who approve of any practice call a church who also approves "affirming" and a church that doesn't "bigoted". The label simply refers to which side the speaker is on.

That's Life 101, Marshy.  I'm sorry to be juvenile, but duh.

Society is increasingly on the side of LGBTQ.  And increasingly society sees conservative churches as harboring bigots.

Do you really think that any business that catered to "white only" patrons would survive anywhere but the most isolated communities? The portion of the population who would approve of that would be tiny. (And in an isolated community with no non-white residents, people might roll their eyes but patronize the business because there's no alternative, and given that there is no-one actually being harmed currently.)

Before the era of Donald Trump I would have said, "No restaurant which posts a 'whites only' sign would survive"....now I am not so sure.

But I was just using that to make a point that it is a slippery slope once one allows businesses and vendors to refuse service to a demographic then one has a precedent to deny other demographics service.  It is the same argument Kay uses above to point out that once the law forces expression on  dissenters there is no end to it. 

If you read my comment as a literal scenario (which apparently you did :)), sure, no restaurant with a "whites only" sign would survive for long; there would be the nightly news and protests etc.  There is the law, too, but that is another thing.

This is what should happen in society.  We should not have the government or corporate entities telling us what to think or say.  We should let public opprobrium drive our ethical expressions.  That includes your churches.  Say whatever you want, just get ready for the backlash.

This is, BTW, the process that is happening to anti-LGBTQ religious denominations.  Noticed the laws protecting same-sex marriage? (not expression, in case you are confused, but the legal right to marry)  Society is increasingly accepting of homosexuality.  Society increasingly views homophobia as a form of bigotry.  Slowly society is shunning conservative religion.  It's pretty simple, really.

[marshwiggle]

Why isn't it? The question is whether a church is bigoted in refusing to marry people in a particular category.  Are you saying simply refusing to marry gay couples isn't by itself, bigotry?

Not sure what you are asking.

The denial of marriage rights is an acute symptom of bigotry.

And are the churches supporting "sister wives", aka polygamy, being "affirming", or are they being immoral?

I don't know about "affirming" in this context, but it is only "immoral" if people are abused.  If everybody is happy, what is the problem?

The general argument against allowing polygamy is that the women are not really free to choose. So the "everybody is happy" criterion is the problem.

People who approve of any practice call a church who also approves "affirming" and a church that doesn't "bigoted". The label simply refers to which side the speaker is on.

That's Life 101, Marshy.  I'm sorry to be juvenile, but duh.

Society is increasingly on the side of LGBTQ.  And increasingly society sees conservative churches as harboring bigots.

So basically the church's value system should be determined by society at large. In which case it serves no useful purpose.

Do you really think that any business that catered to "white only" patrons would survive anywhere but the most isolated communities? The portion of the population who would approve of that would be tiny. (And in an isolated community with no non-white residents, people might roll their eyes but patronize the business because there's no alternative, and given that there is no-one actually being harmed currently.)

Before the era of Donald Trump I would have said, "No restaurant which posts a 'whites only' sign would survive"....now I am not so sure.

But I was just using that to make a point that it is a slippery slope once one allows businesses and vendors to refuse service to a demographic then one has a precedent to deny other demographics service.  It is the same argument Kay uses above to point out that once the law forces expression on  dissenters there is no end to it. 

If you read my comment as a literal scenario (which apparently you did :)), sure, no restaurant with a "whites only" sign would survive for long; there would be the nightly news and protests etc.  There is the law, too, but that is another thing.

This is what should happen in society.  We should not have the government or corporate entities telling us what to think or say.  We should let public opprobrium drive our ethical expressions.  That includes your churches.  Say whatever you want, just get ready for the backlash.

This is, BTW, the process that is happening to anti-LGBTQ religious denominations.  Noticed the laws protecting same-sex marriage? (not expression, in case you are confused, but the legal right to marry)  Society is increasingly accepting of homosexuality.  Society increasingly views homophobia as a form of bigotry.  Slowly society is shunning conservative religion.  It's pretty simple, really.

As I noted earlier, society is even more quickly shunning liberal religion. Where it all ends up in a decade or two will be interesting to see.
The trend is simple to observe; the end result is not at all obvious.