Is a cross-shaped WWI memorial on public property unconstitutional?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Like I said. 

Rationalize it all you want, but it's not that complicated. You either:

1) accept homosexuals as individuals having their own, innate ("God"-produced) sexuality 

or

2) you think they are sinners against God by simply being who they are.

 

Everything else is obfuscation. 

But thank you for not taking an extreme position.

It's a gross oversimplification, which is why I think you didn't engage the other examples I posed that are no different in quality or intent than the gay wedding situation.

[aubiefifty 16,766]

On 2/27/2019 at 1:41 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

Eh, some of the founding fathers were not orthodox Christians, so....

This is a legal question under the Constitution - which is precisely why it isn't in the smack talk forum. 

wow.......i actually agree with you for this. some christians would confuse the separation of church and state. when it comes to the dead i have mixed feelings. is it something the dead wanted or just something the church wanted? it certainly is not as shady appearing as sneaking the ten commandments into the court house in the middle of the night after being told not to. but how many were muslim or jewish or athiest? do we leave them out? do we insult their bravery by putting a cross up for some who were not believers?

[aubiefifty 16,766]

On 2/27/2019 at 6:49 PM, Brad_ATX said:

I personally don't care that the monument is a cross even though I'm not a religious guy.  However, you're argument here is flawed. 

The cross has been internationally adopted as a primary symbol of Christianity.  Much like the swastika is synonymous with the Third Reich now, despite it's origins being in the Far East centuries before Hitler ever came to power.  Let's say we put a WW2 memorial on public land in the shape of a swastika.  Most would be outraged even though it's a mere "interpretation of a symbol" as the original meaning of it was peace and love.

Common symbols have to mean something in society or we can all argue interpretation for just about anything, including a stop sign.

native american indians oddly enough also used the swastika and if i remember correctly it was a symbol of luck?

[aubiefifty 16,766]

On 2/27/2019 at 7:48 PM, SaltyTiger said:

No one can deny that many of the founding fathers of the United States of Americawere men of deep religious convictions based in the Bible and faith in Jesus Christ. Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, nearly half (24) held seminary or Bible school degrees.

https://www.thoughtco.com/christian-quotes-of-the-founding-fathers-700789

 

and yet they were all agreed to separation of church and state.period. i am not sure it can be stated any plainer.......

[homersapien 11,367]

36 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It's a gross oversimplification, which is why I think you didn't engage the other examples I posed that are no different in quality or intent than the gay wedding situation.

I disagree. Not a gross oversimplification.   It ultimately boils down to one of those two positions.

[SaltyTiger 7,793]

2 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

and yet they were all agreed to separation of church and state.period. i am not sure it can be stated any plainer.......

I have no problem with that. What is your point fifty?

[aubiefifty 16,766]

5 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I have no problem with that. What is your point fifty?

call me trump fifty there slimey salty. i have no point if you are good with upholding the constitution. if you were close i would buy you a cocktail.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

I disagree. Not a gross oversimplification.   It ultimately boils down to one of those two positions.

Then by that logic, you think the photographer in the scenarios I posed is a racist and persecutes women who work in porn.  Good to know.

[homersapien 11,367]

13 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Then by that logic, you think the photographer in the scenarios I posed is a racist and persecutes women who work in porn.  Good to know.

No, I think the photographer in the scenario you posted has nothing to do with the way people think of homosexuals.

It's a red herring.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, I think the photographer in the scenario you posted has nothing to do with the way people think of homosexuals.

You may think that, but you've never shown a substantive difference to back that thought process up.

 

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It's a red herring.

Saying it's a red herring doesn't make it one.

[homersapien 11,367]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You may think that, but you've never shown a substantive difference to back that thought process up.

Well, please explain how a position of not taking pornographic jobs is directly relevant to the two possible ways people view homosexuality. 

 

Saying it's a red herring doesn't make it one.

Or vice- versa.

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well, please explain how a position of not taking pornographic jobs is directly relevant to the two possible ways people view homosexuality. 

I don't have to use your framework to defend my point.  

My point is, not taking *some* jobs because being materially involved in the content or message or whatever of those jobs would violate your conscience or religious beliefs, when you gladly take other jobs from the same set of people is not hating them or persecuting them.  So you might take regular photos of the same woman, but refuse to take the nude photos and not have any hatred or animosity toward those who work in the porn industry.  Similarly, you may not take the job that would promote the black rapper's album as it being materially involved in that endeavor would violate your conscience or religious beliefs because of the content of the music being objectionable (misogynist, vulgar and overly sexual, violent, sacrilegious or whatever).  But you'd be happy to take photos of him and his kids.  In that scenario, making such a distinction in the event or content of what they are asking you to utilize our talents for doesn't mean you're a racist.

The situation with gay people you're willing to serve with your talents for other occasions and events but refusing to be a part of this one event doesn't make you a bigot either.

 

Quote

Or vice- versa. 

You're the one who asserted it though, so it's on you to explain why or drop the accusation.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 6/21/2019 at 3:27 PM, homersapien said:

 

 

Let me respond to this on Monday. Enjoying some cold ones in the Louisiana heat this weekend. Good discussion.

[homersapien 11,367]

On 6/22/2019 at 12:08 PM, TitanTiger said:

I don't have to use your framework to defend my point.  

My point is, not taking *some* jobs because being materially involved in the content or message or whatever of those jobs would violate your conscience or religious beliefs, when you gladly take other jobs from the same set of people is not hating them or persecuting them.  So you might take regular photos of the same woman, but refuse to take the nude photos and not have any hatred or animosity toward those who work in the porn industry.  Similarly, you may not take the job that would promote the black rapper's album as it being materially involved in that endeavor would violate your conscience or religious beliefs because of the content of the music being objectionable (misogynist, vulgar and overly sexual, violent, sacrilegious or whatever).  But you'd be happy to take photos of him and his kids.  In that scenario, making such a distinction in the event or content of what they are asking you to utilize our talents for doesn't mean you're a racist.

The situation with gay people you're willing to serve with your talents for other occasions and events but refusing to be a part of this one event doesn't make you a bigot either.

 

You're the one who asserted it though, so it's on you to explain why or drop the accusation.

Well, first, you are making no distinction between accepting homosexuality and accepting pornography which is a red herring.  They are not connected.

But if you insist on my accepting your argument they are synergistic I suppose I can rationalize a connection by associating the perception of both pornography and homosexuality as sinful.

Given that rationalization, then your "Christian photographer" hypothetical clearly comes under the second of the two possible perspectives on homosexuality:   Homosexuality is a sin against God.

Otherwise, there's really not much point in my arguing against someone's religious views, even with history and science on my side.

I am fine with the fact we disagree on this.  No point in wasting each other's time.

[homersapien 11,367]

20 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Let me respond to this on Monday. Enjoying some cold ones in the Louisiana heat this weekend. Good discussion.

Well, my misunderstanding of the origins of this cross change much of what I was originally arguing, but it some ways, it makes the legal basis of the various judgements even more interesting.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

40 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, first, you are making no distinction between accepting homosexuality and accepting pornography which is a red herring.  They are not connected.

Because I'm not equating accepting either thing.  I'm equating how you deal with a person who believes or does something you may not agree with.  You can and should serve them in various ways like family photos, but if the thing you're being asked to involve your talents, time, artistic abilities and so on violates your religious beliefs then you should be able to decline.  And doing so doesn't mean you hate or persecute them.  

I also mentioned a situation with a black rapper, so if the porn example isn't something you can see, then deal with that one.

 

40 minutes ago, homersapien said:

But if you insist on my accepting your argument they are synergistic I suppose I can rationalize a connection by associating the perception of both pornography and homosexuality as sinful.

Given that rationalization, then your "Christian photographer" hypothetical clearly comes under the second of the two possible perspectives on homosexuality:   Homosexuality is a sin against God.

Otherwise, there's really not much point in my arguing against someone's religious views, even with history and science on my side.

I am fine with the fact we disagree on this.  No point in wasting each other's time.

Sure they may believe it's a sin, but the point is, I'm not arguing for the right to turn down someone for committing certain kinds of sins.  The photographer shouldn't be able to turn down a black person, an adult film star, or a gay person for regular events like birthday parties, graduation or retirement celebrations and so on.  Nothing about those kinds of events is a problem and you can't turn down someone simply because they are a different race or sexual orientation than you, or that they happen to do things you think are morally wrong.  But if they wish to involve you in a particular aspect of their life that legitimately goes against your religious beliefs, then in that instance, of course you should be able to turn it down.  And doing so doesn't mean you're doing it over who they are either.

[homersapien 11,367]

17 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Because I'm not equating accepting either thing.  I'm equating how you deal with a person who believes or does something you may not agree with.  You can and should serve them in various ways like family photos, but if the thing you're being asked to involve your talents, time, artistic abilities and so on violates your religious beliefs then you should be able to decline.  And doing so doesn't mean you hate or persecute them.  

I also mentioned a situation with a black rapper, so if the porn example isn't something you can see, then deal with that one.

 

Sure they may believe it's a sin, but the point is, I'm not arguing for the right to turn down someone for committing certain kinds of sins.  The photographer shouldn't be able to turn down a black person, an adult film star, or a gay person for regular events like birthday parties, graduation or retirement celebrations and so on.  Nothing about those kinds of events is a problem and you can't turn down someone simply because they are a different race or sexual orientation than you, or that they happen to do things you think are morally wrong.  But if they wish to involve you in a particular aspect of their life that legitimately goes against your religious beliefs, then in that instance, of course you should be able to turn it down.  And doing so doesn't mean you're doing it over who they are either.

Of course it does.   

If one actually believed homosexuality is a natural (God given) condition, (#2) then a religious-based conflict would not exist in the first place.

For one to believe homosexuality is against their religious beliefs, they must, by definition, consider homosexuality as an affront to God's will (or the equivalent). (#1)

I am not arguing against the right of anyone to not participate or support anything that goes against their religious beliefs.  I am fine with people expressing that right, at least conditionally, as their action should be balanced against the rights of the homosexual (which is where the legal conflict resides).

I am just pointing out the two possible belief systems that determine one's position regarding homosexuality, one way or the other.  It's a way of cutting the debate down to the bottom line, as well as illustrating the futility of said debate in the first place.  Belief system #1 is based on religious belief.  Such belief is not subject to argument. Any change has to come from within.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Of course it does.   

If one actually believed homosexuality is a natural (God given) condition, (#2) then a religious-based conflict would not exist in the first place.

Still incorrect.  In my second example, one obviously believes the skin color/race is a natural condition.  Yet a religious conflict still exists - because the conflict is about a specific thing they are doing and wanting to materially involve someone else in, not who they are.

 

 

[homersapien 11,367]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Still incorrect.  In my second example, one obviously believes the skin color/race is a natural condition.  Yet a religious conflict still exists - because the conflict is about a specific thing they are doing and wanting to materially involve someone else in, not who they are.

 

 

I am confused.  How does skin color factor into this?  The only way it would be relevant is if the religious objection was specifically skin color. 

In that case - which actually has occurred historically - the same two basic rules apply.  One either believes that dark skin reflects an affront to Godliness or they believe God created people with dark skin just like he did whites.  It's roughly the same analogy.

Likewise, how does coercion factor into my argument?  I acknowledge homosexuals are capable of behaving inappropriately by trying to coerce others against their will (for example) in a given situation, but that obviously that doesn't have to be religious-based.  That's just a simple matter of courtesy.

I am not talking about the sin of coercing someone else to do something they don't want to do, I am talking about ones perception of homosexuality.  One either (1) perceives it as a sin or affront to God or (2) perceives it as just another natural forum of sexuality.

Likewise, one could be simply be repulsed personally by the idea of homosexuality which doesn't necessarily have to be religious-based.  But such personal, non-religious,  preference - or repulsion - doesn't explain why one wouldn't be willing to simply live and let live, say by opposing gay marriage. 

I am talking about rejection of homosexuality on a religious basis.  That would naturally cause one to reject the idea of their having the right to marry (for example).

The one essential requirement for one to have a religious-based bias against homosexuals - in general - is that homosexuality must be considered a sin or an affront to God. 

Surely you can agree with that without prevaricating with complex scenarios?

Likewise, if one believes that homosexuality occurs naturally just like everything else in nature, then it's very hard to justify any sort of bias simply based on who they are, much less a religious-based one. 

 

[homersapien 11,367]

23 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

 But if they wish to involve you in a particular aspect of their life that legitimately goes against your religious beliefs, then in that instance, of course you should be able to turn it down.  And doing so doesn't mean you're doing it over who they are either.

Obviously.  Anyone should be able to refuse a request from anyone, depending on circumstances and consequences.

But I am talking about your religious opposition to homosexuality, not about having one coerce you into doing something you refuse to do, for any reason.

You do have a religious-based opposition to or bias against homosexuality, do you not?

Do you think homosexuals are entitled to marry?

[homersapien 11,367]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Still incorrect.  In my second example, one obviously believes the skin color/race is a natural condition.  Yet a religious conflict still exists - because the conflict is about a specific thing they are doing and wanting to materially involve someone else in, not who they are.

 

 

It's only a "religious conflict" if the person refusing to comply with the request is basing their refusal on their religion's bias against homosexuality.

Unless skin color is the basis of that religious bias, it's irrelevant.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

57 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Obviously.  Anyone should be able to refuse a request from anyone, depending on circumstances and consequences.

Then this discussion should be over.

 

[homersapien 11,367]

16 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Then this discussion should be over.

 

It is if you do want to acknowledge why people refuse to comply with homosexual's requests - why they consider it an affront to their religious beliefs to bake them a cake or photograph a wedding.

While I understand their rationale,  the homosexuals involved in these incidents are overreaching in their expectations.  They would be better served by just moving on and doing their business with people that welcome it. 

My only point is that this is far less about one group attacking another groups right to hold their religious beliefs.  The conflict is ultimately based in the origin and assumptions that found those religious beliefs in the first place.  Everything else is secondary.  Homosexuals should just move on, but the religious plaintiffs in this case should to be honest about acknowledging the basis of their beliefs instead of couching the argument in terms of their right to hold them.  That right is not seriously in dispute, regardless of the lawsuits challenging them.   

What is in dispute - IMO - is the validity of those beliefs, which is something that only time and understanding can address through cultural change.  (Which is exactly why homosexuals are overreaching.)  That's the only debate worth having.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

46 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It is if you do want to acknowledge why people refuse to comply with homosexual's requests - why they consider it an affront to their religious beliefs to bake them a cake or photograph a wedding.

We've already discussed why.  It's obvious they don't object to serving gay people simply for being gay because they have happily done business with them for other occasions - birthday, parties, etc.  They are objecting to a particular event because they feel that being a material participant to that event goes against their religious beliefs.  In this case, yes it's a gay wedding.  In another case it's that the rap artist's lyrical content is objectionable.  The issue isn't that they won't serve gays, or blacks, or rappers, or musicians.  It's that what they are doing is objectionable from a religious standpoint.  

 

46 minutes ago, homersapien said:

While I understand their rationale,  the homosexuals involved in these incidents are overreaching in their expectations.  They would be better served by just moving on and doing their business with people that welcome it. 

Agreed.  And it shouldn't be hard to find.

 

46 minutes ago, homersapien said:

My only point is that this is far less about one group attacking another groups right to hold their religious beliefs.  The conflict is ultimately based in the origin and assumptions that found those religious beliefs in the first place.  Everything else is secondary.  Homosexuals should just move on, but the religious plaintiffs in this case should to be honest about acknowledging the basis of their beliefs instead of couching the argument in terms of their right to hold them.  That right is not seriously in dispute, regardless of the lawsuits challenging them.   

What is in dispute - IMO - is the validity of those beliefs, which is something that only time and understanding can address through cultural change.  (Which is exactly why homosexuals are overreaching.)  That's the only debate worth having.

Well, the dispute is about legal matters.  The legal system isn't meant to tell us whether someone's beliefs are valid, only whether they have the right to hold those views and to what extent (if any) we can compel them to act against them.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 6/23/2019 at 2:31 PM, homersapien said:

Well, my misunderstanding of the origins of this cross change much of what I was originally arguing, but it some ways, it makes the legal basis of the various judgements even more interesting.

Ok good deal