Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
How far should political correctness take us?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mugsy" data-source="post: 2733038" data-attributes="member: 18914"><p>This is an interesting discussion - but odd. A specified recognized right, that to worship and live in accordance with one's conscience's dictates, against what is essentially a newly created (from whole cloth) right. You, TFF, claim that one is essentially a natural right - and the other which I would claim expresses the innermost desires of man's heart and soul, to know the creator, understand him and do his will, is just a choice. Even more so our Constitution clearly recognizes one as of great importance and is silent about the other "right" which has been in existence for no more than a few short years and mostly by judicial decree.</p><p></p><p>You say that sexual preference isn't a choice, maybe so though I am not sure that is quite true as there is clearly a cultural training component, but even so what does that mean for marriage? Marriage as a legal institution is not a right but a legal construct (formerly) recognizing a natural institution for the creation and raising of children that served a social good. Now it has become a tool for validating one's "status" as an equal social grouping but has relatively little social importance. However, even if I grant all you've said - what does that have to do with a small business owner not wanting to participate in an act that directly supports what he or she finds odious being forced to do so against his will? </p><p></p><p>Are you really saying that anything one wants to do - as long as there is a current consensus (because that is all that the high sounding opinion of "experts" is) in its favor - must be validated by everyone with no expectation that an individual can just say "no, I will not participate in this"? To my mind we are rapidly approaching a thought crime era - where it isn't enough to simply obey reasonable laws but one is also expected to genuflect (religious symbolism intended) to whatever is the latest dogma proposed by social engineers - at peril of one's livelihood and freedom.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mugsy, post: 2733038, member: 18914"] This is an interesting discussion - but odd. A specified recognized right, that to worship and live in accordance with one's conscience's dictates, against what is essentially a newly created (from whole cloth) right. You, TFF, claim that one is essentially a natural right - and the other which I would claim expresses the innermost desires of man's heart and soul, to know the creator, understand him and do his will, is just a choice. Even more so our Constitution clearly recognizes one as of great importance and is silent about the other "right" which has been in existence for no more than a few short years and mostly by judicial decree. You say that sexual preference isn't a choice, maybe so though I am not sure that is quite true as there is clearly a cultural training component, but even so what does that mean for marriage? Marriage as a legal institution is not a right but a legal construct (formerly) recognizing a natural institution for the creation and raising of children that served a social good. Now it has become a tool for validating one's "status" as an equal social grouping but has relatively little social importance. However, even if I grant all you've said - what does that have to do with a small business owner not wanting to participate in an act that directly supports what he or she finds odious being forced to do so against his will? Are you really saying that anything one wants to do - as long as there is a current consensus (because that is all that the high sounding opinion of "experts" is) in its favor - must be validated by everyone with no expectation that an individual can just say "no, I will not participate in this"? To my mind we are rapidly approaching a thought crime era - where it isn't enough to simply obey reasonable laws but one is also expected to genuflect (religious symbolism intended) to whatever is the latest dogma proposed by social engineers - at peril of one's livelihood and freedom. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
How far should political correctness take us?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom