Religion, Spirituality, or Lack Thereof


I think parenting is not for everyone. So if someone thinks they aren’t suited to be a parent (forever or for now) then I assume it is of the best interest for everyone to not impose parenting on those people.

I’m in no way implying that you said something like that, it is just how I view parenting in general.


Yeah, also it has a lot more to do because some people can’t tolerate noise or feel like they can’t bear the responsibility.


I’d rather be a sad wise man than a happy fool


The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.


I think it was the fact that the baker knew the couple was Gay that they refused. Had there been no indication it probably wouldn’t have bothered them because ignorance of it would’ve meant it couldn’t weigh on their conscience.

(and I told myself i was staying out of this…)


Yes, like Ariador said “ignorance is a bliss.” as in “what you do not know doesn’t hurt you.”


That just comes off to me as hypocritical to me. So they only really observe their religious beliefs if it will be on their conscience? Either you (general “you”)are arguing for the right to discriminate on the basis of being religiously against participating in anything related to same-sex relationships, or you’re just using religion as a smokescreen because you got uncomfy and hateful when you were reminded that gay people exist.


I have no idea what your comment means in relation to Sarak’s, assuming the right one is linked


How so?

I think that it’s kinda hypocritical to use “deeply held religious beliefs” (as was the case in the bakery issue) to justify discrimination because you don’t want to participate in any way in a same-sex relationship, and then only actually go by that belief when you know they are gay when you are told instead of you actually making sure your belief is not violated in the case of everything you sell to any customer.

As in, if you’re not also taking all measures to make sure the anniversary cake for Beth isn’t for her female spouse or the birthday cake for Timmy isn’t being bought by one of Timmy’s two dads, this isn’t a deeply held religious belief. It’s a farce.

A Jew who keeps kosher doesn’t just avoid pork or shellfish when we can clearly see it in a dish, we also ask about ingredients to make sure something we can’t see isn’t violating our keeping of kosher.


I mean, I somehow think the baker probably would do that if it didn’t scare more people off, but do discriminate when they have an actual chance to do so


My point is that if we are going to let people use the grounds of religious beliefs to justify discrimination, they should be consistent in the application of that belief. Otherwise they’re not ACTUALLY doing it because of religious belief, it’s all just a smokescreen.

They should also advertise that they discriminate. If they have the right to refuse customers because of who the customer is, then customers should be able to make informed decisions about the kind of people they are giving their money to.


I’m gonna open a shop were I only serve LGBTQ people because of my strong moral beliefs that they’re better than straight people.


(I don’t agree with this kind of discrimination, but I don’t buy that it’s hypocritical, I can see someone drawing a line with explicitly asking for a cake for a gay wedding but choosing not to enquire to provide a loophole of sorts to people)


I’d just rather know if the person I’m giving my money to think’s I’m an abomination before I give them my money. If you want to discriminate, I don’t think it’s fair to go half way. It’s a loophole that lets them keep taking money from LGBTQ+ customers while being homophobic.


Is this legal in the US or no?

(And why can’t people just, like, do background research on the internet instead of needing a labeling law? It might be annoying but it’s not a ‘loophole’.)


So every time I walk into a bakery or restaurant I need to do a background search on them?

If a place of business doesn’t want a certain type of customer, they should have to advertise it. They shouldn’t get to keep the very customer base they SAY they don’t want and just pick and choose when they decide to enforce their religious beliefs.

Or you know, we could just not make any form of discrimimation on grounds of race/religion/gender/orientation/ability allowable under law??


That makes no sense to me. If you want to shop conscientiously, you have to put effort into it.


I don’t see why a business who SAYS they don’t want to serve gay people, gets to keep all the gay people bc they can hide their views until the moment they decide they want to enforce them in XYZ situation. And then still be protected by claiming they did it as a deeply held religious thing. Deeply held religious beliefs aren’t “sometimes” things.

If you want to discriminate, you should have to make it clear that you are doing so.


This isn’t really a religion topic anymore, it’s a legal/political one that uses religion so let’s just move on.


Yeah, let’s forget this