@sconlan None of that shit even makes sense. Like, I can kind of understand the wedding cake scenario, because you "don't want to be involved in condoning a gay marriage." I disagree, but I can at least understand the rationale. But how the fuck does providing basic, secular-type services violate anyone's religious views?
Conversation
Notices
-
Adam (inkslinger@mastodon.club)'s status on Monday, 06-May-2019 12:22:19 EDT Adam
-
M. Grégoire (mpjgregoire@mastodon.club)'s status on Tuesday, 07-May-2019 10:11:40 EDT M. Grégoire
@ink_slinger @sconlan The NPR article does not suggest that religious people would fail to provide basic, secular services; but it appears that the proposed law would ensure the legality of such a choice. How frequently people would so choose is hard to say.
Like @sconlan, I can't think of a Christian reason to refuse to perform chiropractic services, but there are probably at least a few Christians who feel differently.
-
Adam (inkslinger@mastodon.club)'s status on Tuesday, 07-May-2019 11:40:19 EDT Adam
@mpjgregoire @sconlan
> it appears that the proposed law would ensure the legality of such a choice.And that's the issue. It frankly doesn't matter if few people would exercise that choice (which is probably the case). It shouldn't be on the books. If passed, it would essentially legalize unjustified discrimination. That's the issue here, not the number of people who might actually use this option. The proposed law is unjust.
-
M. Grégoire (mpjgregoire@mastodon.club)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2019 22:26:01 EDT M. Grégoire
@ink_slinger @sconlan "It is no inconsiderable part of wisdom, to know much of an evil ought to be tolerated." Degree of harm, frequency of occurrence, whether injustice would be otherwise discouraged by society, effectiveness of legal remedies, etc. are relevant considerations when we decide where to draw the line between freedom and justice.
-
-
-