Do you support imposing your belief system on non-believers?

[JoeShlabotnik]

Read history.
During the years of prohibition, the sale of beer and other alcoholic beverages skyrocketed. Bootlegs turned into crime kings like Al Capone.
Outlawing things does not work. Look at the so-called war on crime. Billions have been poured into the task, yet one can easily find marijuana or any other drug anywhere in America.
What you do it legalize, tax, and use tax money to educate people on why abuse of drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes are not good for a person.
Cigarette sales in America are at an all-time low.

 

[Athanasiy]

In some East European countries taking place a local parlament debates from time to time about legalising the prostitution.
Enormous amounts of black money go to mafia barons, corrupted policemen and so on, but how to legalize the practise which is “social sin”, “social evil” ?
So better to make better control on prostitution, (by punishing pimps) on drugs and existing black markets.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

the non-believers are imposing their beliefs on us

They are only pressuring an airport.

 

[upant]

They are only pressuring an airport.

news headlines show the agenda being pushed across the spectrum

 

[Rau]

That’s how tyranny, fascism and some monarchies work, not democracies. Democracy imposes the will of the PEOPLE on others. Democracy does not enable you personally to impose your beliefs on others. You need to be a dictator to do that.

The individuals in a democracy seek to have their wishes, their beliefs (where relevant) become law - by democratic process - in the knowledge that laws will bind all. I don’t believe the other poster meant anything different to that.

The law is an imposition on those not agreeing with it. This is a reality that must be accepted if the democracy is to survive. Democracies often seek ways to minimize the “imposition” Eg by enabling various exceptions where these are reasonably possible. Eg. While gay marriage may be made possible, churches and various service providers might be excused from various kinds of participation in them.

 

[Rau]

The poster claims he wants his will IMPOSED on

The law imposes…

I think you are choosing to read in a combative position, so I won’t address this point further.

 

[Elf01]

Technically that was done by a handful of Supreme Court justices not through any law on the federal level.

And had been rejected twice by California.

 

[upant]

They are certainly shaming the company, but they are not imposing anything.

sure they are, if you want to do business with them you have to accept their views.

The poster claims he wants his will IMPOSED on others

we all do, that is how it starts, you want something and then you get supporters that push your agenda,

this is happening now with religious persecution, a small minority pushing an agenda, soon you won’t be in business if you don’t support the agenda.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

sure they are, if you want to do business with them you have to accept their views.

No you don’t.

If someone kicks puppies and thinks it is cool and also owns a tow truck if I hire the person to tow my car I haven’t accepted that it is okay to kick puppies or that it is cool.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And if I choose not to hire the puppy-kicking tow truck owner,

Which is a right. More so since one’s stance on puppy kicking isn’t a protected class.

he can’t whine about how I discriminate against puppy kickers.

Yes he can. He can complain and the government is prohibited from restrict those complaints provided he is not breaking some other law to share his views there.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

OK, let me rephrase. He cannot sue me for not hiring him because I dislike puppy-kickers.

He certainly would have no case.

 

[Rau]

The world is realizing the Church’s position on homosexuality is not acceptable.

Can you elaborate? A “position” is only really relevant in so far as it gives rise to actions? What actions are “not acceptable” (that the world is realizing…)?

 

[upant]

If that is what becomes of it, you can only blame yourself. If I ran a store and called it the “Nazi store”, I really couldn’t complain about going out of business, could I?

you miss the big picture, it has nothing to do with the operation of the business, they are attacking a remote owner’s beliefs.

The world is realizing the Church’s position on homosexuality is not acceptable. “hate the sin, love the sinner” only works if you believe it. Pope Francis understands this.

how does Pope Francis see it? have I missed where he changed church teaching?

If you refuse to be tolerant, you will pay the price - financially anyway.

it isn’t being tolerant, it is redefining a core belief of the church.

No you don’t.

If someone kicks puppies and thinks it is cool and also owns a tow truck if I hire the person to tow my car I haven’t accepted that it is okay to kick puppies or that it is cool.

no, they won’t tow your car because you don’t accept that they kick puppies. you don’t get the choice to disapprove.

Which is a right. More so since one’s stance on puppy kicking isn’t a protected class.

protected is the keyword,

 

[Rau]

when the Church pushes its doctrine against homosexuality and similar sexuality issues into the secular world, there is going to be pushback.

The church expressed a view and the pushback ought properly to be an opposing view. It’s called speech, dialogue and debate.

But when the Church promotes doctrines that attack secular gay marriage, you can expect people to pushback in some manner.

The Church does not “attack”. It has opposed on well established grounds. Others are welcome to disagree like adults.

In this case, we are talking about how pro-Christian businesses are bearing the brunt of this pushback.

It would seem that it is the those who favour gay marriage who have launched the attack, turning a debate into something else.

 

[upant]

You are so overly dramatic. They aren’t attacking an owner’s beliefs! They are simply choosing another store.

they are very clear on why they aren’t using the company.

Pope Francis is trying to be more open to homosexuals and divorced Catholics. There is resistance.

he isn’t changing church teaching.

“recognize the sin, love the sinner” is still the rule

 

[Rau]

I think that if the Church focused on defending traditional marriage in the context of the sacrament, there would be little if any complaints.

It defends it on the basis of something more tangible, more self-evident. The evident sexual nature of man and woman. But even this is denied!

Catholics open themselves up to pushback. In this case, having people refuse to do business with them.

You make it sound as though this is some kind of natural behaviour? “I disagree with your views on that, so I’m gonna boycott you”. Sounds like bully tactics to me.

But to deny the rights of non-Christians that want to get married? I would push back as well.

What you call secular marriage was a legal support arrangement for that unique relationship between man and woman that is the building block of society. The society decided to modify it to something else. I suggest there is no weighty logical reason to stop where we are now. Apparently, it’s just a matter of law.

 

[esieffe]

For example, do you oppose same-sex marriage? If so, would you also support banning premarital sex under penalty of law?

Yes I oppose SSM. I would outlaw it if I could, but the law would only sanction government employees issuing the certificates. I would look the other way on commitment ceremonies etc. Ban premarital sex under the law? No. It is a mortal sin but not a civil offense. Clearly hard to enforce.

 

[maccalus]

I would worry more (tho it is too late) about same sex marriage it didn’t bother me til my daughter said she is gay. Now it disgusts me again. I know that is not a good attitude but know no other wat to look at it. Mom was the one I would ask this of but she passes 8 days ago. She was catholic.