CA has mandatory vaccination/CA Bans Personal Belief Exemp

[Snarkylark]

How exactly are people with these religious beliefs being threatened?

By being fined crazy amounts and having to close their business AND not having the freedom of speech to be able to talk about their case.

[August]

It does not matter what your beliefs say. You cannot discriminate against a protected class when you open a public business. Period. That is the law. I do not care what your religion or opinions may be. Your beliefs do not trump the law. Period.

I'm glad the law is coming around to be better, but I don't believe the law is the final arbiter of what is right and good. My beliefs always trump the law, even if I have to go to jail for it.

Homosexuality used to be illegal, yet if I had to go to jail to protect someone under that law I (hope) I would have. Same goes for all sorts of stupid, and downright evil laws that have existed and still exist. If an abortion provider ignores the closed eyes of a distraught woman who (according to the law) is supposed to be watching an ultrasound, does the law trump the beliefs of that provider? (leave aside that by breaking it they might not be able to provide that care in the future, which is a greater badness)

I'm glad laws are getting better, but I'll happily break a law that I consider morally wrong.

Velocirapture, interestingly, there's evidence that the English wanted to do better than the Spanish had done in the Americas, so even then there was a limit to the bad behaviour they thought was christian.

Wasn't there a big push to convert people in the slave holdings in West Africa before transport so that they'd be more docile and accepting? Anyone know?

[VelociRapture]

That's why I didn't say "choice." What word would you say fits there?

Just say you don't agree with it. You don't have to say anything implying you think it's a choice, while still making your view clear. It's just a way to be respectful towards others.

[DowntownAbbey]

By being fined crazy amounts and having to close their business AND not having the freedom of speech to be able to talk about their case.

Why wouldn't they have the freedom to talk about their case?

[FundieFarmer]

I was thinking about the long term history in the states - not just the Cuvil Rights movement. I mean, look at how members of Native American tribes were treated by European invaders immigrants, most of them Christians.

Oh! Well yes. I do agree with you there!

[Snarkylark]

Just say you don't agree with it. You don't have to say anything implying you think it's a choice, while still making your view clear. It's just a way to be respectful towards others.

Ok. I thought I was using the right word. I was not trying to offend anyone.

[formergothardite]

Really minor and unrelated to the bigger issues -- but can you really drive a car on private roads without insurance? You can't in my state, which happens to be California. In order to register the car you have to provide proof of insurance. And you can't just not register the car -- they will give you big fines and eventually suspend your drivers license.

I'm trying to find the actual laws, but I know lots of people who own cars that they drive up and down their own private road and they don't insure them. Of course if you are going to someone else's property you would have to get permission. But in general it doesn't seem to be an issue. So in California if you bought an old car to just tinker around with you would have to register and get insurance for it?

[Snarkylark]

This is exactly why I didn't want to address the issue in this thread. Lol we're way off topic again.

[formergothardite]

Several states require car insurance. Mine is one of them. I've always carried insurance (at the very least, liability) because it's stupid not to. But that's not a medical issue.

Like I said, earlier, what is it about medical issues that makes it different? In both the vaccine and car insurance reason it is required is because it is better for society. At least with the vaccines you can get a medical exemption, you can't with your car. So why in one case do you support government mandates that remove individual rights for the greater good but in the other case you don't? Especially since you appear to be comfortable with the government controlling a woman's body and making abortion illegal(that won't stop abortion, it will just make it more dangerous).

[formergothardite]

This is exactly why I didn't want to address the issue in this thread. Lol we're way off topic again.

That is normal. And I personally got a lot of my beliefs challenged here reading threads like this.

I used to be an anti-gay marriage, anti-choice person but being forced to see things in a way I had never seen them and then trying(and failing) to defend such ideas helped me re-evaluate my beliefs. And I suspect you have not had a lot of opportunity to really have to defend these sorts of beliefs. If you are willing to vote to remove my rights and the rights of my daughters then you should be willing to debate the issue. If you are willing to vote for people who would try to take marriage away from gay couples and allow discrimination, you should also be willing to discuss it. It is one thing to have personal beliefs but once you start voting to force those beliefs on the rest of us then it is down right cowardly to not listen to the people you are hurting. And no, being told you can't discriminate against someone because they are gay isn't "persecuting" or "hurting" anyone.

[formergothardite]

By being fined crazy amounts and having to close their business AND not having the freedom of speech to be able to talk about their case.

To get clear, you think that the "White Only" signs were okay? Especially since it was often religions beliefs that played into this. They had deeply held beliefs that got violated when it no longer became legal to discriminate against people because of the color of their skin.

If the Muslim baker made and sold baptism cakes, then yes he/she should have to sell one to a Christian who ordered one. If he did not sell those cakes then no he shouldn't. I can't walk into a local bakery and ask for certain types of cakes because they don't sell them. It isn't discrimination if the company doesn't sell the item to anyone. The difference with the gay couple was that they were not asking for something that the Christian bakers didn't sell. They were asking to be treated like everyone else, and you are saying that discrimination is okay.

[happy atheist]

ETA: Now I'm a Bodily Fluid Performance Artist! Does this post count title have to do with the lady who drinks dyed milk, then throws it up onto a canvas, or is it referring to how little kids like to...smear...things everywhere?

Neither.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26229

Buckle up. It's quite a trip. :wink-kitty:

[OkToBeTakei]

That is normal. And I personally got a lot of my beliefs challenged here reading threads like this.

I used to be an anti-gay marriage, anti-choice person but being forced to see things in a way I had never seen them and then trying(and failing) to defend such ideas helped me re-evaluate my beliefs. And I suspect you have not had a lot of opportunity to really have to defend these sorts of beliefs. If you are willing to vote to remove my rights and the rights of my daughters then you should be willing to debate the issue. If you are willing to vote for people who would try to take marriage away from gay couples and allow discrimination, you should also be willing to discuss it. It is one thing to have personal beliefs but once you start voting to force those beliefs on the rest of us then it is down right cowardly to not listen to the people you are hurting. And no, being told you can't discriminate against someone because they are gay isn't "persecuting" or "hurting" anyone.

I would like to give Snarkylark the benefit of the doubt but I find it difficult to believe that somebody who claims to work in the health field has four kids is so naive to the world at large and has not debated or been challenged on these views before. I think she is quite happy with her world view . I don't think she is interested in seeing anybody else's view point that does not fit with her 'religious/personal beliefs.' FG :shrug:

[nelliebelle1197]

By being fined crazy amounts and having to close their business AND not having the freedom of speech to be able to talk about their case.

But if they are discriminating against a protected class, they don't have a legal argument. They cannot open a public business and then discriminate because their rights don't trump those of a protected class. Religion is not a protected class. The government cannot interfere with their right to practice to their religion but their religion does not allow them discriminate in the public sphere. Religion is private; business is public.

And please don't say freedom of speech is clamped down. That is BULL. The government does not go in and tell these idiots to shut up; the public does. That does not hamper constitutional freedom of speech.

[formergothardite]

I would like to give Snarkylark the benefit of the doubt but I find it difficult to believe that somebody who claims to work in the health field has four kids is so naive to the world at large and has not debated or been challenged on these views before. I think she is quite happy with her world view . I don't think she is interested in seeing anybody else's view point that does not fit with her 'religious/personal beliefs.' FG :shrug:

I could see it though. I doubt she was as sheltered as I was(it is really hard to get so sheltered you make it till your 20's before understanding sex :lol: ) but she seems like a person who has lived her life surrounded around people who mostly agree with her on these issues. Maybe not the vaccine one because even here in the Bible belt I have found most people in the medical field aren't going to think well of someone who links to unreliable sources and thinks America is turning into China. But with gay marriage and abortion, yeah, in my area you can easily surround yourself with Fox news loving people who don't think deeply about these issues and so go a long time without having anyone really challenge how you think.

[formergothardite]

But if they are discriminating against a protected class, they don't have a legal argument. They cannot open a public business and then discriminate because their rights don't trump those of a protected class. Religion is not a protected class. The government cannot interfere with their right to practice to their religion but their religion does not allow them discriminate in the public sphere. Religion is private; business is public.

And please don't say freedom of speech is clamped down. That is BULL. The government does not go in and tell these idiots to shut up; the public does. That does not hamper constitutional freedom of speech.

Fox news and some other conservative "news" sources have been claiming that a gag order has been put on the Oregon bakers saying they can't discuss their beliefs. What really happened is that they did an interview plus posted a picture on FB saying that they would continue to discriminate against gay couples. This violates another Oregon law that says that a business can't advertise that they discriminate, like a hotel couldn't advertise that it would only serve white people and turn away everyone else. When it comes to their private life the bakers can say what they want, but they are not allowed to continue saying that they plan to discriminate when it comes to their business.

This is most likely what Snarkylark is talking about.

[FundieFarmer]

Snarkylark, would you say you are a compassionate person? I guess I ask because when I think about the happiness or security your beliefs would deny others, I can't help but wonder where human compassion plays into that.

[OkToBeTakei]

patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2014/05/is-every-christian-against-gay-marriage-necessarily-a-bigot/

No one wants to be a bigot, of course: not even the most virulent KKK member will claim that repelling appellation for him or herself. But bigot is as bigot does.

And since it’s impossible for a person to hold a conviction—especially one based on religious beliefs—that they don’t in some way live out, it is, alas, safe to claim that any and every Christian who believes that gay people shouldn’t have every last moral and legal right they claim for themselves is a bigot.

You can’t be in the KKK and claim that you’re not a bigot; you can’t be opposed to LGBT rights and claim that you’re not a bigot. Well, you can, of course. But if you do you are fooling no one, least of all God.

Blog opinion piece.

[Snarkylark]

Snarkylark, would you say you are a compassionate person? I guess I ask because when I think about the happiness or security your beliefs would deny others, I can't help but wonder where human compassion plays into that.

But that's the thing. I'm not trying to deny others their beliefs or rights. I did grow up extremely conservative, PK. I believe I can think something is wrong but not deny others the right to do what they want. A lot of people I know don't feel that way or haven't made that connection yet. I don't think I fit in with a particular voting party 100% either way. I try to treat people how I'd want to be treated. I was caring for a manager's family member and I was given a "heads up" about who they were. My response was that I treat every patient the same no matter who they are. You will get all of my attention and the same treatment no matter who you are. Along the same lines, I don't think I could participate in performing an abortion. Care before or after, sure if it was part of my job but I don't think I could be a part of the procedure.

[formergothardite]

But that's the thing. I'm not trying to deny others their beliefs or rights. I did grow up extremely conservative, PK. I believe I can think something is wrong but not deny others the right to do what they want. A lot of people I know don't feel that way or haven't made that connection yet. I don't think I fit in with a particular voting party 100% either way. I try to treat people how I'd want to be treated. I was caring for a manager's family member and I was given a "heads up" about who they were. My response was that I treat every patient the same no matter who they are. You will get all of my attention and the same treatment no matter who you are. Along the same lines, I don't think I could participate in performing an abortion. Care before or after, sure if it was part of my job but I don't think I could be a part of the procedure.

I can understand not wanting to perform an abortion, but as long as you don't want to make it illegal or you don't want to pass laws that are so restrictive that it is virtually impossible to get an abortion, then I don't think most people here would have a problem. Is that how you feel, because, honestly I still can't get where you stand. Like I get that you don't like abortion, but are you okay with it being legal?

If you are okay with discrimination against gay couples, then you are trying to deny people rights and beliefs, just as much as the people who fought to keep businesses able to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin.

[nelliebelle1197]

But that's the thing. I'm not trying to deny others their beliefs or rights. I did grow up extremely conservative, PK. I believe I can think something is wrong but not deny others the right to do what they want. A lot of people I know don't feel that way or haven't made that connection yet. I don't think I fit in with a particular voting party 100% either way. I try to treat people how I'd want to be treated. I was caring for a manager's family member and I was given a "heads up" about who they were. My response was that I treat every patient the same no matter who they are. You will get all of my attention and the same treatment no matter who you are. Along the same lines, I don't think I could participate in performing an abortion. Care before or after, sure if it was part of my job but I don't think I could be a part of the procedure.

But that is not true. The minute you want to deny someone equal rights- marriage, for example - based on something they cannot change, you are a bigot. You need to understand that. By saying gay people should not marry and enjoy the same rights as a heterosexual people, then that is clearly a bigoted statement. Civil unions and all that poppycock are just excuses to cling to a word - a word that happens to come with a hell of a lot of rights that you cannot obtain any other way. Civil unions are also a way to continue to define non-heterosexual relationships as the other and create a "separate but equal" universe that parallels nothing more closely than the Jim Crow South. It is a type of apartheid that has no place in modern culture.

[Mama Mia]

But that is not true. The minute you want to deny someone equal rights- marriage, for example - based on something they cannot change, you are a bigot. You need to understand that. By saying gay people should not marry and enjoy the same rights as a heterosexual people, then that is clearly a bigoted statement. Civil unions and all that poppycock are just excuses to cling to a word - a word that happens to come with a hell of a lot of rights that you cannot obtain any other way. Civil unions are also a way to continue to define non-heterosexual relationships as the other and create a "separate but equal" universe that parallels nothing more closely than the Jim Crow South. It is a type of apartheid that has no place in modern culture.

But she hasn't said she wants to deny gay people the right to marry. She said that she, personally is against it, but that her religious / personal beliefs shouldn't be used to deny rights to others.

I mean, I shouldn't be jumping in here trying to say what her beliefs are -- but it seems, to me, that she's worded some things so badly / offensively that people aren't really reading the posts where she tries to clarify the difference between her personal beliefs and what she thinks should be the legal position.

[FundieFarmer]

But that's the thing. I'm not trying to deny others their beliefs or rights. I did grow up extremely conservative, PK. I believe I can think something is wrong but not deny others the right to do what they want. A lot of people I know don't feel that way or haven't made that connection yet. I don't think I fit in with a particular voting party 100% either way. I try to treat people how I'd want to be treated. I was caring for a manager's family member and I was given a "heads up" about who they were. My response was that I treat every patient the same no matter who they are. You will get all of my attention and the same treatment no matter who you are. Along the same lines, I don't think I could participate in performing an abortion. Care before or after, sure if it was part of my job but I don't think I could be a part of the procedure.

In theory, you could say you're not trying to deny rights or the ability to do what someone wants...but how does that play out in the voting booth? It's a rhetorical question, so you don't have to say how you voted. But if, according to your beliefs, you vote against gay marriage or abortion, you are acting to deny someone's rights, and hoping society will align with that vote. You can disagree with something without trying to prevent it, sure, but then I'll assume you're not actively trying enforce your beliefs, say by protesting or voting. But I can't help but think that if you were gay and wanted to be married, someone protesting against that wouldn't be treating you how you'd want to be treated.

It's really good you can stay consistent with patients regardless of your opinions. That would help in the vaccination situations, as well as the scenario I presented before.

If you were a PK, do you mind me asking what faith? You don't have to share, obviously, but I'll say I come from an extremely reformed Pres background, though I do not openly claim it, as you can probably tell in this discussion. (Frankly, that's because at this moment, I'd be a terrible representative of the faith, so I stay hands-off in that sense :lol: )

Also...if anyone wants me to quit asking questions and go back to the vax topic, I'm totally fine with that! I know thread drift is not unusual and I am just very curious, but feel free to hand slap if I'm annoying! :lol:

[formergothardite]

But she hasn't said she wants to deny gay people the right to marry. She said that she, personally is against it, but that her religious / personal beliefs shouldn't be used to deny rights to others.

I mean, I shouldn't be jumping in here trying to say what her beliefs are -- but it seems, to me, that she's worded some things so badly / offensively that people aren't really reading the posts where she tries to clarify the difference between her personal beliefs and what she thinks should be the legal position.

Very bad, vague wording does make things hard to understand in this thread.

Snarkylark, would it be correct to say that you are for gay marriage being legal despite your personal beliefs?

And would it be correct to say that you are for abortion being legal despite your personal beliefs?

She has said that she thinks it should be legal to discriminate against gay people, something I wonder if she has really thought about. Yes, gay couples could have gone to a different baker but the black people who went and sat at "white only" places and tried to order food could have also gone other places. Does she think the latter were wrong and businesses should be allowed to discriminate?

These bakers are not being persecuted, no matter what Fox news claims.

[Snarkylark]

But she hasn't said she wants to deny gay people the right to marry. She said that she, personally is against it, but that her religious / personal beliefs shouldn't be used to deny rights to others.

I mean, I shouldn't be jumping in here trying to say what her beliefs are -- but it seems, to me, that she's worded some things so badly / offensively that people aren't really reading the posts where she tries to clarify the difference between her personal beliefs and what she thinks should be the legal position.

Yes.

I don't think buying a cake is a right. So I don't think that not baking a cake for a couple denies them rights. Make sense?

I think that forcing pastors to perform marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs is wrong. Some pastors will not marry someone because they have been divorced before. I think that's along the same lines. It's a union they don't agree with and as such shouldn't be forced to perform it. Or a ceremony between one person that is in the particular faith or religion and one isn't. I don't see that as denying rights.