|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or Indy has been good to Paizo despite trying (instead of succeeding) to kill Cosmo.
Yes, Zathras understand:
The Shadows believe that for a race to evolve into their full potential, they must do so through a cycle of chaos; growth through pain and struggle, conflict and war. Weak races die. Strong races are made even stronger. With this they developed their First Principles: chaos through warfare; evolution through bloodshed; perfection through victory.
Zathras recommends conventioneers and Cosmo's co-workers keep eyes trained to see if Mr. Morden or other minions show up to receive Cosmo's orders.
If a wall o' text on a mere webpage puts you off, you ain't ready for a bill.
Not a webpage, Google search results. My search fu wasn't strong today.
Thanks, Zhangar, for the link.
So, I read the House Bill and, I'm no legal expert, but it sounds this creates a giant loophole in criminal prosecution. As written, I can get away with all sorts of heinous, normally illegal, behavior if I simply claim that it's "motivated by my sincerely held religious belief."
The bill is not just intolerant, it's a piss-poor piece of legislation.
EDIT: And if that wasn't enough, it's taking away Gen Con from my home state.... :(
Thought question:
The Koran specifically forbids men to touch a woman not of his family.
Should a Muslim barber be forced to cut a woman's hair who walked into his shop?
Not a good example. That would force the Muslim man to violate tenets of his faith personally, bodily.
A baker who happens to find homosexuality abhorrent isn't being asked to participate in homosexual acts. He's being asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding. So, he gets up, goes to work, and bakes a cake and delivers it. I don't think any of that violates any long-cherished, deeply-held beliefs.
It really doesn't matter whether Paizo is for or against it. It's a very very small part of GenCon.
Paizo has been a Co-sponsor of the show for how many years in a row now? And 'contributing sponsor' or one of those levels for years before that.
And locks up some of the largest gaming rooms for PFS, all Con long.
Are you sure they're a 'very very small' part of Gen Con?
Though I feel badly for anyone registered that way who does not subscribe to their zealous culture war, do yourself a favor and flee while you still can and join us, we have cookies AND ethics. (proven fact, ethics make cookies taste even better ;) )
What if the cookies are sinfully delicious?
On a more serious note, what's a WASP1950?
Thought question:
The Koran specifically forbids men to touch a woman not of his family.
Should a Muslim barber be forced to cut a woman's hair who walked into his shop?
Not all Muslims would have this problem, as it is not from the Koran but rather from the Hadith, additional sayings and teachings from Mohammed after the Koran. The teachings of the Hadith are regarded as sacred law for some, mild suggestions to others. That's why some Muslim women wear the full naqib and others wear western clothes with their heads bare: it depends upon the group to which the individual belongs. Much like the Amish and other groups that have religious dictates on behaviour and clothing.
Essentially if a certain job requires the violation of a religious tenant to practice that job in a society where discrimination is illegal, that job may have to be dropped. We live in a free society; that requires some religious practices to be shut down where those practices affect others who do not believe in that faith. It is a compromise that almost all religions have to make in such a society. Sadly, some do not believe they should compromise even when dealing with others outside their church.
This is intolerance and should be outlawed. If the Muslim in question was one who believed this tenant was law, he may have to modify his behaviour on risk fines. Religious freedom only goes so far; when it impacts those who are not part of your faith it has to change.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thought question:
The Koran specifically forbids men to touch a woman not of his family.
Should a Muslim barber be forced to cut a woman's hair who walked into his shop?
Not a good example. That would force the Muslim man to violate tenets of his faith personally, bodily.
A baker who happens to find homosexuality abhorrent isn't being asked to participate in homosexual acts. He's being asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding. So, he gets up, goes to work, and bakes a cake and delivers it. I don't think any of that violates any long-cherished, deeply-held beliefs.
The question I posed is also part of what this law is designed to address, so it is quite relevant.
As to the second part of your response, some Christians view participating in the wedding, even by baking a cake for it or doing the flower arranging, endorsing the act and lifestyle with which they see as a sin.
hey are not protesting the wedding. They are not cussing the people out. They are saying we do not want to participate. This law is letting them not participate without getting sued.
|
|
Thought question:
The Koran specifically forbids men to touch a woman not of his family.
Should a Muslim barber be forced to cut a woman's hair who walked into his shop?In general I think if you want to take a job you should be willing to do what the job entails. You don't get to have the job and not do it. Religion doesn't change that.
This is similar to the bit I mentioned earlier with Muslim taxi drivers refusing to transport passengers with alcohol or blind passengers with guide dogs. (That may have been in the other thread.)
I would say that it becomes more important, the harder it is for the customer to find a substitute. If the barber just waves you to the next chair and the next barber, that's one thing. If you have to go to a different shop that's another. If it's a common belief and it's hard to find anyone in the area who'll serve you, it's even more of a problem.
The Muslim barber owns his own shop. It is a one man operation. Are you saying he is not allowed to own a business?
For those not reading both threads, he signed the it..
|
|
Thought question:
The Koran specifically forbids men to touch a woman not of his family.
Should a Muslim barber be forced to cut a woman's hair who walked into his shop?
Not all Muslims would have this problem, as it is not from the Koran but rather from the Hadith, additional sayings and teachings from Mohammed after the Koran. The teachings of the Hadith are regarded as sacred law for some, mild suggestions to others. That's why some Muslim women wear the full naqib and others wear western clothes with their heads bare: it depends upon the group to which the individual belongs. Much like the Amish and other groups that have religious dictates on behaviour and clothing.
Essentially if a certain job requires the violation of a religious tenant to practice that job in a society where discrimination is illegal, that job may have to be dropped. We live in a free society; that requires some religious practices to be shut down where those practices affect others who do not believe in that faith. It is a compromise that almost all religions have to make in such a society. Sadly, some do not believe they should compromise even when dealing with others outside their church.
This is intolerance and should be outlawed. If the Muslim in question was one who believed this tenant was law, he may have to modify his behaviour on risk fines. Religious freedom only goes so far; when it impacts those who are not part of your faith it has to change.
So Christian, Muslims, and other religious people who want to live by the tenents of thier faith are not allowed to own thier own business?
I cannot remember if it was the baker or the florist, but in one, the same sex couple knew the owner/ operator was a Christian, knew thier veiws, and PURPOSEFULLY went there instead of one of the other available places specifically to play the "GOTCHA" game.
|
I would say that it becomes more important, the harder it is for the customer to find a substitute. If the barber just waves you to the next chair and the next barber, that's one thing. If you have to go to a different shop that's another.
And then there are situations such as finding yourself in a town with only one hotel.
And then there's the matter of medicine and medical care.
People are worried for very good reason, and being told "The market will correct itself! Eventually!" is no comfort.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Muslim barber owns his own shop. It is a one man operation. Are you saying he is not allowed to own a business?
Are you saying that a man who opens a business intending to run it in an illegal fashion should be permitted to do so?
No one is making the guy become a barber. No one is making him be the individual who cuts women's hair in his shop. No one is, for instance, preventing him from wearing surgical gloves to avoid actually touching her. If he goes into business without allowing for the legal framework in which his business will exist, then he's going to have to deal with the consequences.
|
Thought question:
The Koran specifically forbids men to touch a woman not of his family.
Should a Muslim barber be forced to cut a woman's hair who walked into his shop?
Not a good example. That would force the Muslim man to violate tenets of his faith personally, bodily.
A baker who happens to find homosexuality abhorrent isn't being asked to participate in homosexual acts. He's being asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding. So, he gets up, goes to work, and bakes a cake and delivers it. I don't think any of that violates any long-cherished, deeply-held beliefs.
The question I posed is also part of what this law is designed to address, so it is quite relevant.
As to the second part of your response, some Christians view participating in the wedding, even by baking a cake for it or doing the flower arranging, endorsing the act and lifestyle with which they see as a sin.
hey are not protesting the wedding. They are not cussing the people out. They are saying we do not want to participate. This law is letting them not participate without getting sued.
Well put, Statler.
Well put, Statler.Thought question:
The Koran specifically forbids men to touch a woman not of his family.
Should a Muslim barber be forced to cut a woman's hair who walked into his shop?
Not a good example. That would force the Muslim man to violate tenets of his faith personally, bodily.
A baker who happens to find homosexuality abhorrent isn't being asked to participate in homosexual acts. He's being asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding. So, he gets up, goes to work, and bakes a cake and delivers it. I don't think any of that violates any long-cherished, deeply-held beliefs.
The question I posed is also part of what this law is designed to address, so it is quite relevant.
As to the second part of your response, some Christians view participating in the wedding, even by baking a cake for it or doing the flower arranging, endorsing the act and lifestyle with which they see as a sin.
hey are not protesting the wedding. They are not cussing the people out. They are saying we do not want to participate. This law is letting them not participate without getting sued.
And it lets the gays know how judgmental and hateful some Christians can be. Just like Christ would have done.
|
Thought question:
The Koran specifically forbids men to touch a woman not of his family.
Should a Muslim barber be forced to cut a woman's hair who walked into his shop?
Not a good example. That would force the Muslim man to violate tenets of his faith personally, bodily.
A baker who happens to find homosexuality abhorrent isn't being asked to participate in homosexual acts. He's being asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding. So, he gets up, goes to work, and bakes a cake and delivers it. I don't think any of that violates any long-cherished, deeply-held beliefs.
The question I posed is also part of what this law is designed to address, so it is quite relevant.
As to the second part of your response, some Christians view participating in the wedding, even by baking a cake for it or doing the flower arranging, endorsing the act and lifestyle with which they see as a sin.
hey are not protesting the wedding. They are not cussing the people out. They are saying we do not want to participate. This law is letting them not participate without getting sued.
Having been married to someone who had a business making wedding cakes, I find it very hard to believe that there are wedding service providers who only participate in weddings that they fully approve of.
Or is it also common to refuse to participate in weddings where the couple cohabitated or had children out of wedlock? Or where one of the couple was divorced?
Just don't see how you could keep a business going if you were going to hold yourself to that standard.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And it lets the gays know how judgmental and hateful some Christians can be. Just like Christ would have done.Well put, Statler.Thought question:
The Koran specifically forbids men to touch a woman not of his family.
Should a Muslim barber be forced to cut a woman's hair who walked into his shop?
Not a good example. That would force the Muslim man to violate tenets of his faith personally, bodily.
A baker who happens to find homosexuality abhorrent isn't being asked to participate in homosexual acts. He's being asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding. So, he gets up, goes to work, and bakes a cake and delivers it. I don't think any of that violates any long-cherished, deeply-held beliefs.
The question I posed is also part of what this law is designed to address, so it is quite relevant.
As to the second part of your response, some Christians view participating in the wedding, even by baking a cake for it or doing the flower arranging, endorsing the act and lifestyle with which they see as a sin.
hey are not protesting the wedding. They are not cussing the people out. They are saying we do not want to participate. This law is letting them not participate without getting sued.
Business owners are people, and to some people, there are things more important than business. If they're willing to live with the direct consequences of not having the business of entire groups of people, then they can sit in the hole they dug. What becomes a problem is when a government works to make you do something you disagree with, and a governments go to be an active participant in matters of litigation.
But that's going around the issue you raise, trying to conflate judgement and hatred. Jesus is judgemental, it's right in with the Apostle's Creed "He will come to judge the living and the dead."
Then there's Mark 2:16-17
"When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?" On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.""
Jesus ate with sinners, and He acknowledged they were sinners, but He didn't hate them. He went there specifically because they were sinners, because He wanted to tend to them as a doctor tends to his patients.
But to leave it at that, I'd be picking and choosing scripture. Jesus went out, interacted with, and was a part of the lives of sinners, and Christians are called to do the same as Him, so shouldn't that mean that Christians should do the same? Bake a cake for a wedding between two men or two women? Yeah, we can, but we'd also be accepting the other half of that act, trying to call a person away from a sinful act. It'd be disingenuine as a baker to make the cake, but be saying out of the corner of your mouth "but you really should reconsider this course of action," Some people would resent the fact, and would really hate to have to be told that, and others would hate having to do that.
In living with love and trying to fulfill the law, a person has to make decisions as to how best to do that. Trying to take those decisions away by holding litigations over the head of a person because they chose one way or another isn't going to help anybody.
If somebody is doing something you don't agree with, and want you to do something to help out, do you politely excuse yourself from such an act, or do you help out while being honest and telling them how you really feel, and wish that they wouldn't do it? It's your choice, I'll have judgement about it, sure, everybody has judgements about everything. But I won't use it as grounds to condemn you. Nobody should.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an accountant, I regularly refuse to work for people who want to do legal things that I'm not comfortable supporting/enabling - I suggest they find another accountant. I dont really see why I shouldnt be allowed to do that (?) I dont think it's relevant if no other accountant will do it either.
Is there a difference between me and the hypothetical barber who doesnt want to cut women's hair (or redheads or whatever personal decision they make)?
Chief Technical Officer
|
I've already stated Paizo's position on this, and we really don't need a second thread for discussing the merits (or not) of the topic. Locking this one. Other thread is here.