The Yankee said:
So, it's okay to discriminate against anyone as long as you know they have some trait that you don't like for some reason?
That's not what I said. Also it's not about whether it's OK for them to do it. It's about whether it's OK for us to force them to not do it. And the "it" involves more than just not liking a trait or behavior.
Smiling and serving a black customer might go against the conscience of someone working in a diner.
Then the waitress or waiter would have a right to refuse service. However the owner of the diner would also have a right to fire her. An amicable solution perhaps would be for simply another waitress or waiter to serve those customers, if the owner were to want to have compassion for or accomodate his loyal waitress or waiter.
Employing a known Red Sox fan could violate the conscience of someone in the personnel department.
Same analysis as above. But this is an unrealistic example.
Those things would all be perfectly okay according to your "right to discriminate"!
No, no no no. I am not saying that ANY of these things is OK (at least not any of the above and in any case it's not my primary point). What I AM saying is that it is NOT OK for the GOVERNMENT to FORCE someone to act against his conscience. For example it would not be OK for the Government to force a Hindu gods worshipper to worship Jesus. This does NOT mean that I think it is OK to worship Hindu gods. I don't. I think it is wrong to worship Hindu gods. I think it is terrible to worship Hindu gods. BUT, I think it is ALSO wrong for the govt (or in this case anyone else) to FORCE the Hindu to worship differently if that would be against the Hindu's conscience.
Yet you say otherwise. So why is it okay to only discriminate against homosexuals?
I never said it was "ok" to only discriminate against homosexuals (in fact I mentioned discrimination against heterosexuals early on in the thread) And again this is not primarily about whether it is ok to discriminate against homosexuals. It is primarily about whether it is OK to force others to not discriminate against homosexuals if their conscience tells them that not discriminating would be morally wrong. You are getting the two issues confused with each other. Read my Hindu example above.
What if it someone had the conscience to discriminate against you for whatever they didn't like about you? You speak of morals being universal yet you leave it up to people's consciences to decide who they feel like discriminating against. It's one or the other! Come up with a consistent position on this, please!
The nature of morality is primarily objective. Something is either moral or it isn't moral. However people -- just like with any other subject even things like physics -- can disagree with other on what is in fact moral and what is in fact not moral. When there is a disagreement and the disagreement is such that it involves one person who believes that something is immoral while the other does not, this person should not be coerced by the other into doing that which he believes -- correctly or incorrectly -- to be immoral. There's no inconsistency here. Believing that there is such a thing as the truth doesn't mean that you believe that people who disagree with you about what's true should be tortured or otherwise coerced into acting according to your own beliefs about what's true.
Furthermore, what is "within reason" with relation to someone practicing Hinduism?
I think that's a whole other thread.
You've been arguing that it should be the law to be able to discriminate against homosexuals because you don't advocate homosexuality.
No that's not what I've been arguing at all.
To repeat what I am arguing is this:
We should not force people to violate their conscience.
That's it. That's my whole essential argument. Certain other things have come up in the thread due to other people's inevitable questions but that's not the core of what I was saying about this particular issue.
And now you say you don't advocate people practicing Hinduism.
What I mean is that I don't think worshipping Hindu gods is a good thing. I think it's bad. But, I ALSO think it is bad to FORCE Hindus to NOT worship Hindu gods. It's that whole not forcing people to violate their conscience thing. It's not that difficult to understand.
So should it be the law of the land that we can discriminate against Hindus?
If someone thought that not discriminating would be a violation of his conscience, then he should be free to discriminate against Hindus without coercion -- just as a HINDU if he thought worshipping a god other than the Hindu gods would be a violation of HER conscience should be free to continue worshipping the Hindu gods without coercion.
Why can't the Hindu discriminate against you?
The Hindu can discriminate just like anyone else can if he thinks that his moral conscience requires him to do so.
Read the quote again and tell me what is so perverted about it rather than dismissing it outright.
I never said it was perverted. I just said that I disagreed with it.
I would think denying someone the right to have housing and decent work because they're not heterosexual is pushing your morals on someone else.
Here's the difference. You are not FORCING the homosexual to actually DO anything here by allowing others to discriminate against them. You are not THREATENING the homosexual with jail or anything like that. But in the case of the landlords you ARE forcing the landlord to DO something -- i.e. to house someone he believes would be a violation of his conscience to house. And you ARE threatening the landlord with jail or other similar punishment. That's the critical difference. Also just weigh the outcomes: 1) someone who chooses to engage in homosexual behavior has a tiny chance of being without a house for a while 2) someone who happens to just believe a certain way is subject to being thrown in jail. The fact that you consider (1) to be so much more important than (2) and don't even talk about (2), is an indication of your heavy bias.
And I say that people shouldn't be so damn uptight about what goes on in other peoples' bedrooms, living rooms, or evening dates.
OK, maybe they shouldn't. But then CONVINCE them with words instead of FORCING and COERCING them to act as YOU believe.
Attraction isn't something you can turn on and off.
Behavior and actions is something you can turn on and off.
You professed your love of blonde haired, blue eyed women. How much would you like it if someone said you could no longer lust or have a relationship with one?
Fine with me. I like brunettes too
No, actually, it is your logic. You've been saying how people can choose to be homosexual.
I've been saying in this thread that people choose to engage in homosexual behavior (regardless of whether the disposition is chosen or not), in homosexual actions and YOU HAVE AGREED WITH ME! explicitly stating that their actions are indeed choices. But then you started to backtrack and I've tried to get clarification but you have refrained from answering.
So why not extend it to pedophelia?
Sure, why not? As I said the term "pedophilia" means someone with the disposition or attraction. It does not imply that there has ever been any kind of action or sexual abuse. Someone who has the disposition or attraction can CHOOSE not to sexually abuse children just as someone with the homosexual disposition or attraction can CHOOSE not to engage in homosex. You ALREADY told me that homosexuals can choose to not engage in homosex before you started backtracking.
quote]Oh no, you wouldn't want them to be hired by a children's camp. Why not? Could it be because they cannot simply turn off their pedophile attractions like a switch?[/quote]
You are not making any sense! They can simply CHOOSE to not engage in sexual abuse of children just as homosexuals can CHOOSE not to engage in homosex. Whether their respective attractions can be turned off or not is IRRELEVANT to the question of whether their ACTIONS can be chosen or not. Regardless of the cause of pedophilia or homosexuality (meaning the attraction), it remains true that those individuals are perfectly free to behave and choose whatever actions they like, just as any other human is able. Having the attraction does not take away free will.
But, just because they CAN do something does not mean it is CERTAIN that they will do it. And when dealing with dangers to youth you want as much CERTAINTY as possible. Thus while it is perfectly POSSIBLE for a pedophile or homosexual (when dealing with same sex) or heterosexual (when dealing with opposite sex) to choose not to abuse the youth and it may even be LIKELY that they will not, that doesn't mean it will be CERTAIN or AS CERTAIN as if you limited the youth camp counselors to heterosexuals of the same sex -- and this fact has ALREADY been recognized as true by at least one other person in this thread!
You've caught yourself in a contradiction by saying homosexuals are able to choose to turn that part of themselves off while pedophiles cannot do the same.
I have no idea what you are talking about. First do you mean the DISPOSITION (i.e. attraction) or the ACTION/BEHAVIOR. BOTH homosexuals and pedophiles can CHOOSE to not engage in homosex and abuse of children respectively. If you are talking about DISPOSITION, then say so, instead of confusing the issue.
Furthermore, you wouldn't care if a pedophile is hired by the camp as long as nobody knows he/she is one.
Either you are not thinking straight or I am not communicating well. If a pedophile is hired by the camp then that is something that matters whether anybody knows about it or not. But if no one KNOWS anything about it then no one can ACT on any knowledge they have of it since they ex hypothesis do not have any knowledge of it in the first place. Let me use a different example to get my point across.
If there's a bomb in my car then it would be something that matters whether anyone knows about it or not. But if I don't KNOW there is a bomb in the car and have no idea or inkling that there is a bomb in the car, then I certainly can't DO anything about it, can I? I can't ACT on knowledge that I don't have. Do I WANT to know if there's a bomb in my car? Yes. Can I DO anything about the fact that there is a bomb in my car if I don't happen to KNOW that there is one? No.
The argument that he lived a long time ago and so we know so much better is not a good one.
