The Supreme Court Fight is On. The Divide Worsens

And, he’s not necessarily an anti-religious bigot. He just doesn’t want to make a cake with that specific message. More power to him. Return the favor though.

If Christianity didn’t allow for the discrimination of gays, SCOTUS would have ruled against him. It’s specifically out of respect for those religious teachings that are having accommodations made. Atheism has zero of those teachings.

Right. More power to him. But he’s not discriminating based on atheism. He’s discriminating based on himself. Atheism doesn’t preach/advise/guide anything, let alone discrimination.

Sure, but because Atheism is a lack in belief in God, I imagine he’d be able to argue that contributing to a message that implies Jesus is God goes against his conscience.

If not, then he should be able to. Let’s see if it happens. We don’t even know if there’s enough freedom left in this place for the baker, yet. So far the court has only really dealt with a narrow situation of that case (bias).

If it goes against his conscience, it’s not due to Atheism. A religious viewpoint isn’t a requirement to having a conscience. Atheism doesn’t set forth rules/practices the way religion does, therefore you cannot claim to be following one when you discriminate.

Sure he should be able to discriminate, just not on religious grounds. Since he wouldn’t have a religion.

[quote=“pfury, post:427, topic:243485, full:true”]

Sorry, I don’t follow. Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods. So if he doesn’t want to spread the message that Jesus is a God (sky fairy stuff) how is that no informed by his atheism?

Edit: I mean, it also doesn’t teach prohibitions. It doesn’t prohibit discrimination either. So one is free to discriminate under atheism, and still practice the one true atheism so long as there remains a lack of belief in gods.

Because atheism doesn’t expect/ask/tell you to stop the spread of any religion. His atheism might be something that helps shape his views of the world, but it doesn’t ask him to do anything.

Yes, they are. But one is not free to discriminate BECAUSE of atheism, as atheism doesn’t ask you to discriminate.

You cannot practice atheism. It’s the lack of a religion, therefore there is nothing to practice. Religious people are the ones practicing something.

What I’m saying ultimately though is that I do think it would end up being judged on religious grounds (free exercise of being also the right to refrain from religion)

I guess if I were to see a single court case where that’s happened, I’d be more inclined to believe it’s possible. As an atheist, I can’t imagine a world where a judge let’s me claim literally anything on religious grounds, since I admittedly don’t believe in the very concept of religion.

If atheism doesn’t inform the conscience of atheists, can we get you guys to agree to school prayer :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

I don’t disagree with school prayer because of atheism :stuck_out_tongue:

I disagree with it because of separation of church and state. I feel that, if it existed, it would be very good for the country.

1 Like

Alrighty my friend. Appreciate your chiming in. I’ll defend your right to refuse my Christian cake any day!

1 Like

Sure he could. He can claim it violates his anti-religious tendencies, which would be a religious claim.

Please tell me the aspect of his religion that is either condoning or advising him to discriminate.

What the fuck are you talking about? Is this one of those moods whwe you have to have some sort of ‘last word’ over a dumbass sidetrack you introduced?

I cannot psychoanalize hypothetical people. But if you want, I am sure you can find an anti-religious bigot and ask him his motivation.

Why did you have to introduce ‘dumb’ into the conversation?

Or are you an anti-religious, atheist bigot who wants to defend your position? Otherwise, I cannot defend the amount of energy spent on this sidetracked horseshit.

Go do you last word crap… I am sure it will be riveting.

1 Like

A hatred of religion can be a source of a religious claim. Like ‘All religion, is like bullshit man, ya know… dey so stupit!’
Is a religious claim.

You brought up animals, plural. I didn’t ask what animal, singular. Nice try though, for you.

You answered what animal. I asked about animals, plural.

Then who decides where we draw the line? Those who face the discrimination or those who are from the group that discriminates? Should heterosexuals tell gays what they should tolerate? Should men tell women? Whites tell blacks?

You don’t get it. An atheist Baker can’t say his religion forbids him from baking a cake of some sort.

1 Like

Give it up. You are making zero sense.