People need to learn that their beliefs don’t apply to everyone and that they need to leave their religion at home in the closet. This has become a problem…
Note: Below is a quote from the article. None of these are my words.
A married couple from Minnesota is calling out Walgreens after a cashier at one of their locations in Wisconsin refused to sell them condoms during their vacation on Fourth of July weekend — telling them it was because of his faith. According to Daily Mail.
Jessica Pentz and her husband, Nate, were shocked and embarrassed when they stopped by the Walgreens in Hayward to pick up groceries and condoms, but the cashier refused to ring them up.
As a spiritual person myself, I definitely respect other people’s beliefs as well as different religions. I will never judge a person for what they believe in.
However, in my opinion, the way that John handled the situation was distasteful and it could have been handled much better than that. If John had such a problem ringing up the condoms, he could have quietly dismissed himself, got the manager, and let them take it from there. However, he had to make a big production out of the situation.
This type of behavior is why many people have no desire to be a part of any religion.
I really can’t follow you here. I haven’t been a part of the community for too long so perhaps I am missing a lot.
First, what do you mean by a “spiritual person”?
Secondly, are you serious that you “will never judge a person for what they believe in” ?
Uh, I could be wrong, but I don’t think Mr.D was the one saying that. Looks to me more like that was part of the article story he shared. Meaning, whoever was involved in the incident is the one telling their side of the story. Seems that way to me, at least.
As for the article itself (getting back on topic), it would certainly be nice if everybody thought that way. Keep your religion to yourself unless you are around your fellow faithfuls. Religion is kinda like a penis. If you have one, that’s great. Congratulations. Good for you. Just don’t be whipping it out and wiggling it in my face. You will likely regret the results of such actions.
Not to be overly burdensome, but are you suggesting that a “ left-leaning” person could also deny someone service based on their own “faith”, or the “faith” of the customer?
Or either?
Hypothetically, if I was left-leaning and a distinctly right-leaning person entered my store and I noticed they were wearing different fabrics …
Leviticus 19:19 says, “Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”
The same legal decision that allowed one to deny service to a gay because of religious reasons can also be applied in other scenarios.
The door swings both ways.
Personally, I think both sides are in a stupid pissing contest.
At the risk of appearing quarrelsome, how likely do you think it is that a “left-leaning” person would exhibit such behavior, unless in obvious objection to extremism such as white supremacists, etc.? While I recognize and acknowledge the appearance of similitude here, I think it should be noted the difference between a faith based belief and a belief originating from the behavior of hate groups, etc. If indeed it is just a faith based belief, then it matters not whether it comes from the right or from the left.
If discrimination is allowed for any reason, what is to be the standard by which it is allowed? Should I be required to serve Nazi’s?
Am I finding a distinction without a difference?
I appreciate your point and it is incumbent upon all of us to be diligent against bias.
Very evident recently by copy cat laws of the recent Texas Taliban bullshit. Now leftist states are writing laws to allow anyone to sue a manufacturer or anyone who supplied a firearm used in any crime to be sued by a private citizen for up to $10,000. With no limitations on the number of people who can file the same case! Meaning any citizen could get struck with so many lawsuits it turns into a class action lawsuit.
So is it really a good idea to go tit for tat sometimes? Unfortunately this will undoubtedly also hurt innocent otherwise law abiding citizens who did nothing wrong.
Sure, let me see if I can find specifics from PA here. There was a news blurb at one point about local candidates proposing one such law here or in NJ.
Now if that was entirely accurate reporting, I’m not totally sure. Of course being local news it was a bit vague, just “democratic lawmakers”. I will try to find specific people if not the news clip if I can.
California bill 1327 proposes holding manufacturers AND individuals responsible for furnishing or supplying specific weapons such as assault rifles. This is the only specific law proposed which I could find.
This is a really difficult issue with nuances galore.
Apparently that part of the proposal was dropped. May 25th they tried introducing a bill on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
I think it was scrapped because it had 0 chance of passing here anyways. Schapiro supposedly backed the idea, but now I can’t find any indication that’s true either. This political landscape is so full of crap journalism, and such bullshit.
So I guess the idea was floated but no one seems to have jumped on board, so guess I jumped the gun on that one lol.
No worries. This is a real hot potato. One faction has a gun fetish almost as pronounced as their fetus fetish. Another faction thinks that gun regulations alone could counter the exaggerated propensity for violence that Americans seem to possess. Caught between are reasonable people who are dismayed by the realities on the ground and tired of a fruitless debate.
A topic worthy of examination needs to be turned around and all sides of any argument dissected.
Go talk to someone from the extreme militant left, such as antifa, or animal rights, or any other group like that. They are just as capable and motivated to do such stupid shit.
Thanks David.Yeah, that is why I used your identification of “left- leaning”. I don’t disagree that extremists are capable of all sorts of shit.
I still see a difference between objecting to providing a service because I believe in an invisible man in the sky, and objecting because you endorse and subscribe to an organization know to commit acts of violence and oppression. One is based in reality.
I am still curious if you think I should be required to serve Nazi’s. Is it simply a matter of the standards of doing business? Am I also required to provide services to known criminals? Are there any appropriate exceptions and who gets to decide?
Personally, having owned and operated my own business, I would have gladly closed my business rather than being forced to provide my services to Nazi’s. Although I was already an Atheist at that time, I did not object to serving people of various “faiths” as I don’t, in general, see them as a threat, absent evidence to the contrary.
I found inobvious ways of declining to serve known racists, etc. I never found it necessary to broadcast my views from the rooftops, although I did have a few instances where I had fairly contentious interactions with potential customers.
How about this: No shirt no shoes no service. Is that it? Is that all?