Religious Freedom Does Not Supersede Civil Liberties | Will Barnes | Part 2 of 6

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 1 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 22

  • @burieddreamer
    @burieddreamer 5 років тому

    "Religion has got no privilege whatever. We've heard the pope today saying that religion is especially privileged. This is nonsense. Why? The idea that 'because you feel strongly about something means nobody must challenge you' is an absurdity. People feel very strongly about stupid things and they hate being challenged." - David Starkey

  • @55bigcheese
    @55bigcheese 7 років тому +6

    weak. should have brought up FGM, gender segregation, forced child marriage and most importantly Sharia courts

  • @D13GOR
    @D13GOR 7 років тому

    If you're going to allow such discrimination, you may just as well allow 'no gays,' 'no blacks' signs and the like to be hung outside shops.

  • @rumco
    @rumco 7 років тому +11

    Idiotic defence, no one has a right to demand other people's services.

    • @SisterDanger
      @SisterDanger 7 років тому +10

      They do when those people conduct business under the law, which applies equally to all.

    • @rumco
      @rumco 7 років тому +1

      No. That's idiotic too. You can't delegate rights you don't have. Besides, it does not apply equally to all, different laws apply to State agents vs private citizens and laws vary per geographical location.

    • @colinjensen
      @colinjensen 7 років тому +2

      Right now you're living under the law, does that mean that the law defining what percentage of milk purchased by the military must be locally sourced applies to you? No. Just being a baker does not mean that a rule preventing the government from showing preference for any religion applies to your bakery.

    • @rumco
      @rumco 7 років тому

      You're making no sense. Also, government is illegitimate.

    • @colinjensen
      @colinjensen 7 років тому

      SisterDanger's argument was that anyone who provides a service is bound to the same rules the government is bound by. I gave some opposing examples.

  • @thomasmenezes4464
    @thomasmenezes4464 7 років тому

    the cake one is a bad example and the bakery did nothing wrong. they did not refuse service because the person was gay but refused to make something that supported gay marriage which is completely different and not illegal. the the gay person had ordered a birthday cake saying "happy birthday Steve" then they would have been served.

  • @michaelculbert3748
    @michaelculbert3748 7 років тому +1

    I'm sorry but if the views expressed aren't yours, don't stand on a debate stage and promote them. This is why we have so many insincere MPs poisoning national debate on serious issues because they don't think about what they truly believe is right or wrong, they just say what they are told to say or think will be most politically expedient at that moment in time, to the detriment of the entire country. Stop this posh-boy crap and stand up for what you BELIEVE in.

    • @elm2908
      @elm2908 5 років тому

      Michael Culbert I guess you have never been part of a proper debating club

  • @Ferzhq
    @Ferzhq 7 років тому +1

    government doesnt have a right to discriminate, private owners do

  • @SisterDanger
    @SisterDanger 7 років тому

    So very nicely laid out. Clear, concise and organized and I very much appreciate the addressing of points largely free of phrases like "I feel" or "I believe".

    • @JRibs
      @JRibs 7 років тому

      SisterDanger Those terms are a strong sign that someone isn't truly sure of what they are saying.

    • @colinjensen
      @colinjensen 7 років тому

      Or they're from a place where that's culturally polite. Being from California, we were absolutely taught that it was rude to make a subjective statement without saying "I believe" or "I feel" in front of it.