Discrimination vs. Religious Freedom (Restoring Religious Freedom Act)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- Video game violence: • Fortnite doesn't cause...
Today's video is a philosophical commentary about the conflict between Religious Freedom and Discrimination in US law. We cover a whole wide variety of topics on this conflict from gay weed cake, to Chic-Fil-A, to the Restoring Religious Freedom Act type laws that have passed recently. I hope you all learn something and enjoy the Call of Duty Modern Warfare multiplayer gameplay!
Mixer: www.mixer.com/...
Twitter: / drift0r
Discord: / discord
Second Channel: / drift0rplays
Origin PC: www.originpc.co...
ASTRO 5% off link: bit.ly/1NIzdQi
LogitechG 5% off link: bit.ly/2vIE2Za
Drift0r Scuf Controller: scuf.co/Drift0r
Use coupon code "DRFT" for 5% off!
My gaming Router is the Netduma R1: www.netduma.com/
Use code "DRFT" for $10 off!
You should talk about 5g and how bad it is for you. That stuff is scary ...
I think Internet Comment Etiquette already covered that one pretty well.
How is internet bad?
Anthony Tapia all thanks to money and people with internet-addiction problems
1g voice.
2g talk and text
3g the internet
4g digital migration.
5g run the other way...
@@Drift0r scary stuff
Drit0r, you recently asked us what we liked on your channel (something that we couldn't find on other youtubers channels, such as Ace or Tabor - that I love too btw - ) ... well... your political and philosophical videos are the reason why I continue to consider you to be a very special youtuber. Thank you for your analysis. Whatever we agree or not with your opinion, nobody can deny that you know how to bring arguments and go deep into the subjects.
In other words, please continue those series. Thank you for elevating the debates.
UA-cam also needs people like you.
Keep up the good work.
Denying someone a cake is one thing. Being directly responsible for loss of life solely because of your religion is disgusting. People who would willingly allow a patient they don't like for personal reasons to die should have their medical license revoked.
It also kind of goes against the hypocratic oath.
Honestly, if one is a doctor or a physician or whatever, one's religious beliefs should not overwrite one's duty to save lives and protect the lives of others.
Stories like this absolute infuriate me because if one is a doctor or a paramedic or whatever, it is one's duty and one's job to provide help to the best of their ability regardless of who requires it. I know we're all only human, but... that's just ridiculous.
I love these philosophical videos forcing me to think. I often take the ideas to the classroom with me, as I am a high school math teacher, and talk with my students about them. Great video! Much love!
Jeremiah Stringer Hikes I’m in high school watching him and your a teacher watching him 🤓😬
Dude, that's actually super cool! Wish I had teachers like you. I grew up in a Christian house, Church, Christian youth groups, Christian school, so having debates like this and tackling issues from both sides weren't exactly encouraged haha.
FREEKz Illuminati confirmed! 🔺▶️👁🗨
Amarn T Sitran lol I grew up in a Pentecostal home. I know exactly what you are talking about
You are a wonderful man and teacher for teaching our future leaders. Have a nice day
If a baker won't bake you a cake for valid religious reasons don't tell the state to tell him to run his business simply go to another baker
It should be a sin to not treat someone in a hospital and let them die
TheReVmatch yes, god want you to let his creations die when you have the specific training to save them. It’s in the Bible that these people don’t read
@@berengerchristy6256 It's also a part of Christianity that morality requires free agency in order to matter. As in, the government can't force you to be good, so citing the Bible in politics misses the whole bloody point anyway. ;)
God: everyone is equal and have to be treated the same way
People: _being racist and sexist bEcAuSe oF rELiGiOn_
The 5th Commandment (Dt. 5:17), 6th in Protestant usage (Ex 20:13), says "Thou shalt not kill." The implicit corollary is that one must save a life, one's own and others by reasonable care (not driving too fast, not taking drugs, seeing a doctor if home care cannot effect a cure of sickness, etc.). (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2268-2269).
@@aurin_komak
If god wants everyone to be treated equally, then he shouldn't have written a book which explicitly puts women, the people of other nations, slaves, tax collectors, non jews, and witches in a lower bracket of humanity.
This is the kind of fascinating stuff I'm subscribed for. Even though I have been a huge fan from much older CODs
^
I was going to say this lol beat me to it
That's it! I'm offended! I'm unsubbing!
...
...see you tomorrow
not gonna lie, they got us in the first half
Drift0r: "I'm a libertarian"
Also Drift0r: "The government should force private companies to serve everyone"
You do understand what libertarian is, right?
Damian Dimitrov Yes. They strongly believe in both economic freedom and personal liberty. They would oppose more regulation that would force someone to have to do something. They are not fans of government intervention in the lives of people.
@@juked_summit8098 you're correct, but i think that they would like regulations for the companies if its to make the people freer. So when they force private companies to serve everyone, everybody has the right to take services from said company.
Damian Dimitrov Respectfully, that’s just not at all what the Libertarian party believes. Economic freedom is all amount lowering regulations on companies and allowing them to make their own business decisions. Libertarians are against government forcing you to do something, period. Therefore, they’d also be against government forcing you to serve everyone in violation of your beliefs
Companies should be forced to serve everyone.
Companies should also NOT be forced to carry/produce/create/or sell any specific product.
If you as a Christian physician refuse to help people because of relegion, you're a bad Christian.
Janno_O and the state shouldn’t be able to tell you how to be a “good” christian
@@dinugs4052 where was that argument ever been given? All I'm saying is that a good Christian (AND doctor) helps everyone.
Well i would argue that Christianity isn't really a "religion", but i totally agree with your assertion. Christians shouldn't discriminate based on sin.
This is just the inverse of a no true scotsman fallacy
19:23 The membership was based on one thing. You need arms to eat. BIG BRAIN
(joke)
Guus Tielen does anyone know what the membership was based on?
@@el_sancho_2094 a swastika tat.
Ian Bonnar damn that’s crazy
@@el_sancho_2094 Lol, having known nothing about the crystal club before this video, considering the fact that it was called "crystal" clube, and he tapped his wrist, i assumed it was a place for people to shoot up meth. Guess it was even worse than what i thought it was.
@@el_sancho_2094 I do not know he does not say it crystal clear.
A key point here for stores, is whether the issue is the product or the service. Refusing to sell a premade cake is different than refusing to create a cake with a specific event as the core.
Refusing to perform a medical procedure is more of a grey area, but if it's elective the default is doctors choice.
Yup, that is a very important legal distinction.
My thought is this: your first amendment rights end where my rights begin. If you want to say something I disagree with, thats fine, but if you want to violate my rights, that is no longer protected by the constitution. If my religion says I have to kill babies, its still illegal for me to kill babies, right? In the same way, if I want to set up my bar as a "whites only" bar, that's illegal because it violates someone else's right to not be discriminated against. If I want to set up my bakery is a "straight only" bakery, that is illegal for the EXACT SAME REASON that Jim crow laws are illegal. Its that simple.
The only reason "Whites only" bars exist is because they're private establishments.
this vid got a dislike within 30 seconds imagine hating a youtuber that much
That's me and Tmartn
imagine liking a youtube that much that you like their video within 30 seconds after they upload
Also true lol
I wonder what Eight Thoughts has to say
DON'T JUDGE ME!!!
lol I'm only 4 minutes in. I must wait until the video is finished to give my assessment.
Can we take a moment to appreciate granny in the thumbnail
I bet she mains the cane in bloodborne
Driftor, you’re one my favorite youtubers to listen to when driving! I absolutely like listening to your longer commentaries and always end the video thinking, “wow that was pretty good point of view”. Keep up with your videos as a subscriber since MW3 in depth. Love your philosophy videos dearly.
I'm honestly not interested in this specific topic, so I'm just going to address the gameplay.
You should've thrown your C4 in a lot of these confrontations.
lol, i thought the same
Haven't watched the whole video yet. Just wanna say that I work in a chick fil a and we show no discrimination to customers or workers. We serve all, and all kinds of people work (at least in my specific store) here.
You’re a bigot for not thinking the exact way we want you to think- modern liberals
@@Prodixy r/woooosh
@@Prodixy read the message again, it went over your head.
@@MiguelAMH ops haha thank you guys for pointing it out! I appreciate it
@@Prodixy you deleted your original reply coward
Never stop your commentaries! They are calmly presented, well researched (for a blurb), and very thought provoking
I was raised on respecting everyone no matter what there beliefs or any sexual orientation is. Cause at the end of the day God loves them as much as he does me.
God aint real
Love is non sequitur to the fact that God condemns evil lifestyles and punishes them accordingly.
Think about it. You think God doesn't love Adolf Hitler despite the fact He is most likely going to judge Adolf as one of the most evil men in mortality and condemn him to Outer Darkness?
Oh, and respect is earned, not given. Common Courtesy is the thing required to be given to everyone.
And this is why we dont have more tolerant Christians. People like you (Youri) are COMPLETELY Intolerant to even those who dont agree with certain ideals
@@rglover444
That's because at some point in these discussions, our tolerance fades away completely. We cant stand to any longer give credence to these silly magical ideas.
God is just a fairytale, that's it.
Sure, it might not be the most tact approach, but seriously - how would you react if everyday your entire life was micromanaged by a government and society that largely believed space caterpillars lived inside our arms and that the only way to stop masturbating was to eat a gallon of larva and bang your head against a wall?
@@NathanAMeyers I mean in general moreso. In official government affairs religion shouldn't even play ANY factor whatsoever
This is not necessarily a matter of religious freedom or freedom of speech. I would argue that it should also be viewed as a matter of property rights.
The fundamental question is, "at what (if any) point has the government the right to force private companies that are not subsidised by the government, to engage in contracts that the company does not want to engage in". This question is not about what a private company should be allowed to sell and what the contracts ought to be legitamite.
My proposed standard would be that a private company that is not subsidised by taxpayer money, has the right to refuse all non essentiall services and products, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the conduct of the individual that is refused service, this however should not apply to essential services and products. Wedding cakes and photographers are not necessary for survival, nor are there services a right.
Now whether or not the constitution protects property rights to such an extent is not something that I know.
TL;DR
An invidiuals right end where that of another individuals start. I.e religious peole cannot murder infidels because they have a right to life and doing so would be a violation of said right.
Then of course follows the obvious and controversal question as to what right and individual has and what rights are protected by the constitution, and what the current sumpreme court president is and the reasoning behind said president.
Yeah but this allows restaurants (or banks, or clothing stores, or car dealerships) to just stop serving black people. Today that would (hopefully) be a financial death sentence, but there was a time when that exact strategy was used to enforce a system of segregation meant to keep millions of people in a harsher society, and thus a harsher life.
A government which does not legislate against discrimination fosters discrimination. Tolerating intolerance is a single negative; it's just intolerance.
I mostly agree with you. I'm 100% against the idea of giving the state the authority to compel people to do anything. I feel as though it will always be abused by the state and end badly going forward into the future.
@@scott4398
If you had read my comment and concerned yourself with its content, you would have perhaps recognised that some of these things such as clothing stores and banks could be considered necessary goods and services.
While cakes and wedding photographers are not necessary goods and services.
But whatever, you are withing your write to ingore the contents of this response if you do choose to do so.
Your religion doesn’t give you the freedom to violate laws. No business can deny someone a service based off of what that person cannot control(skin color, sexual orientation, etc) under anti discrimination laws. You don’t get to violate those laws period end of story. You cannot do whatever you want just because you’re on your own property. That’s not how this works
@@lubudwc1
"I'm 100% against the idea of giving the state the authority to compel people to do anything."
I take it that this is about the state compelling private companies to do buiseness agaisnt their own will. Taken out of context it would seem like you are in favor having a state without any power.
me: I love Drift0r
Friend: Yeah his game commentary and stuff is great, can't wait to see what more he has to say about the new CoD game.
Me Just getting done binging all of his philosophical videos: Y-yeah, Call of Duty
Big brained much?
Being from the UK it seems crazy for religion to have such an impact on businesses
Yeah because the idea is aincient.
Ironically Europe is no longer devoutly Christian anymore.
I think something that would simplify the topic a great deal is the concept of "freedom of association" . Or in other words, you have the right to refuse or allow any sort of contract or transaction between yourself and anyone else, for any reason whatsoever. Anyone who unreasonably or even reasonably declines someone's business will lose out on that cash flow. and the competing business next door who didn't refuse that someone's business will get it instead. If there is no competing business, anyone who decides to enter that market will have the opportunity to outperform the other discriminating businesses just by virtue of giving that someone who was discriminated against their business. Thats the idea of freedom of association in terms of how it would work practically. In principle, no one has a right to your labor or property (even at a given cost), and by extension, your business. Theoretically you could own all the water in a 10 mile radius and refuse the water to all the other people in that area that need it, you own that water and no one has a right to your property. Now I wouldn't ever consider that scenario to be morally acceptable, but the idea of freedom of association that allows that scenario as a legal framework is the only logically consistent way I could personally see.
I am super glad you talked about Hierarchy of Loyalties in this. It always gets simplified in moral debates to "you believe in things that are bad", but there are usually a ton of shared values, they're just set at different priorities.
Seriously man, great video.
Separation of church and goverment, always need to be separate. Religion has no place in government.
The founding fathers used Judeo Christian life moral's to construct the constitution and even had quotes almost exactly the same as in the Bible. They wanted the separation of Church and State but wanted everyone to have protection for their beliefs.
@@Mrjohnnymoo1 yes, everyone is free to practice the religion of their choosing, but it should not affect how people are governed or treated.
The greatest controversy in this video: Pop Eyes' sandwiches being better than Chick-Fil-A sandwiches.
The one thing that I just want to shout at these people denying service is: IT'S NOT A SIN TO SELL SOMETHING TO A SINNER!!!!
Wow I really love these type of videos.
With the Chick-fil-a thing at the beginning, it's completely disingenuous to say not wanting a store in your airport that is closed on Sunday is religious discrimination. It's all about money in that case. The airport doesn't care about your religion one way or the other.
The airport is a government property and the government isnt allowed to discriminate and the airport discriminated based on religious beliefs
@@Johnwick-jo8uo nah hes saying the discrimination was based on the belief that they would make the airport less money, not because of what they believe.
My point was that they discriminated based on revenue-earning ability, not religion. Not being open on the busiest day of the week is not good for the airport's bottom line. Of course, Chick-fil-a not being open on Sunday is because of a religious belief, which makes the issue a bit messy. But saying the airport was attacking Christianity like someone people were saying is silly. It all comes down to the money.
14 minutes in and I’m really really enjoying this commentary. I think the gaming community needed this bc we normally don’t pay much attention to these things. Thank you, Drift0r
And churches should not be tax exempt
You really do a great job presenting these videos in thoughtful, useful ways. These are always my favorite type of videos you make!
The Church should always be seperated from the State
THIS is the type of content we love. I can listen to you talk about ethics, philosophy, politics, etc. for hours. Don't even care about the gameplay, I listen to the commentary and do other things lmao
Didn't the Bible also say explicitly to "love thy neighbor"? Idk because I'm not religious.
The bible is FULL of contradictions.
Yes, even if you're not religious, the bible is still a sold source for conventional wisdom.
@@killzgaminghd3265 haha
It does say that. If you find my comment i talk about that. We shouldn't discriminate based on sin
@@cameron5040 I know ... I find it funny as well.
Hey Drift0r! I love these deeper videos. Please keep them coming! As a Christian I am always alarmed and distressed to hear the horrible ways we fail to love others and represent Jesus. That is something that I and all other Christians need to be apologizing for daily. One thing I want to throw out there is about your reference to Leviticus (bravo for such an obscure reference btw haha). Leviticus is a book of Old Testament law given to Israel by God through Moses after God delivered them from slavery in Egypt. The purpose at that time was to show broken, rebellious, sinful men and women of Israel how they could have a relationship with the holy and perfect God of the universe. I’m trying to be brief here but essentially, Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of all those Old Testament laws. Meaning that His sacrifice and resurrection has restored our relationship with Him for all who believe. So for example, there is no longer any need for offerings as Leviticus calls for because Jesus was the ultimate and final offering for us. So I think there are still a lot of Christians who believe getting tattoos and cutting your hair a certain way is sinful. But I and a lot of others do believe that there is nothing wrong with it and I wanted to represent that here. Thank you again for the videos!
By the way I also don’t think it’s a sin to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding haha
The thumbnail is so good
Shoutout from Mississippi! Keep up the good work, I like the more philosophical format of this video.
Ayy, nice to see another person from Mississippi lol
;)
I can't believe you would even THINK this way, yet alone come out publicly with this type of rhetoric. I mean, seriously Popeye's chicken sandwich over Chick-Fil-A? I thought you were cool.
They had us in the half
the guys who sued the baker were going from shop to shop until someone said no
I say, if you have more loyalty to God than you do to your profession, that is too say that you would descriminate because if your religion, you should not be in that profession (through public businesses). Bakeries and such aren't that important, but when it comes to hospitals, you should not be allowed in if you will sacrifice your oath as a doctor for your unrelated religious view.
Yeah, I agree. That '95 case mentioned of everybody essentially just leaving a trans woman to die is absolutely sickening.
@@amarntsitran3406 I agree. but they didn't do that because of "religious reasons". Christianity nowhere teaches that you should be cruel to people because you disagree with them about something or because they are doing something immoral.
"love your enemies, and pray for those that persecute you that you may be called children of your father who is in heaven"
@@jackplumbridge2704 Okay sure, I don't know if that was certainly done for religious reasons but your point simply isn't true. God slaughtered people left and right in the old testament for being "sinful". Sodom and Gomorrah, the Midian War of Numbers 31, and even Noah's flood are pretty big examples while being far from the only ones. The NT is obviously more peaceful but I wouldn't be surprised to see examples of this still. It may not entirely count but in Matthew, during the opening of Jesus' tomb, it essentially has the angel kill the guards who were simply on watch. Personally idk why they had to die here. They could have just run away or become converted but the concept of God killing his enemies is obviously quite a welcomed idea throughout.
Also, for Christians, neglecting to associate with anything or anyone sinful can absolutely be considered the more righteous solution because helping or assisting somebody like that may be considered an implication that you support and accept the sin but you can't have that.
This point is very clearly demonstrated by the other examples brought up of doctors not treating homosexuals, or performing abortions when the childbirth would inevitably end fatally for both anyway.
Christians simply don't always consider neglect as cruel or immoral, in fact, it can be called being steadfast in your faith and loyalty to God.
Finally, that verse you brought up is just not great. It's not only a bit "holier-than-thou", it's doing that thing where Christian's like to present themselves as the victims and any favour done must be followed through with prayers that the other person should believe what you believe and that they must remember that you're only being kind because Jesus taught you to be that way.
Just stick to the Good Samaritan for this example. Put aside any disagreements, differences, and grievances. Just help a fellow human if you can without any extra messages or terms and conditions held above their head. Not because any god told you to do so, but because it's the right thing to do and if we would all help one another in this way, then the world would be a much better place.
Edit: Not attempting to attack you btw. I assume by your pfp that you're Christian and if you are still open-minded, accepting and respectful to all, then hey, much love and power to you. I just ask that you don't believe and predicate that the Bible smells of nothing but peace and roses aha.
During highschool my coach always said
God
Family
School
Baseball
I say that if it is private you can do what ever you want. I don’t care if you discriminate against others because the market will decide if that’s ok. Which is IS NOT. But if a corporation is funded or revives anything for the government cannot discriminate. Simple.
Broc Stauffer exactly my pov
thats all fine and good until you get into the essential services such as medical, etc.
@@jackthompson4571 because when you get a medical license, you are taking an oath to help anyone in need, and as such, no matter your personal religious views, you should be obligated to help them.
The Golden Paladin I agree totally but a medical License isn’t signing your ability to the government it’s proof of your qualifications.
Also under the government they will have no competition and it will slow medical advancement.
I was in the navy in 1985. I met a guy that was a jehovas witness and being dishonorably discharged because they wouldnt salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance because of their religion. he explained it to me and i was at first like how can you join the navy and not know youll be asked to salute and pledge. Well the recruiters were shady and he wasnt the shapest knife in the kitchen but anyways they talked him into signing papers and before he knew it he was at the ASVAB center then on a base. Same happened to me but i knew what i was getting into but I was 17 signed up and was on a base within 2 days.I chose to join because my friends joined my dad was in the navy in Korea. But this guy was literally fresh off the farm. But the Government can destroy your life over religious beliefs, dishonorable discharge even at 18 years old can prevent you from getting into any college, any government contracting jobs like Honeywell. I feel the first amendment means exactly the government will and must back off of all religious interference. as for your cake thing your bringing up I think they should have done a simple subcontracting deal by saying yes this is your cake and then call joey down the street to make that cake to be sold to them. I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason or no reason at all.
Q5Grafx I think that’s fair IF you do the legwork on setting up the customer with an equivalent or superior service with someone else, even if it requires facilitating transport of the customer to the service provider or delivery of the goods to your store/the customer. The refusal of service to anyone for whatever stupid reason inevitably leads to Jim Crow, and that’s not good
Didnt the supreme court rule (albeit narrowly) in favor of the bakers?
Yes.
That's what i remember
I believe I remember that too. Which if that's true, well that kinda sucks. I mean, why open a store if you are just gonna tell people "I don't accept your people's money"? That just seems off. If you want to make a Christian only cake shop, than make it something you have to sign up for via from say the churches or something. Also the excuse it being "against being Christian" is also kinda petty as Christianity is huge and groups like the Catholics do accept gays. It needs to be a bit more specific than that.
That makes me sick
@@Skylancer727 So if I'm a Hindu chef and decide to open a catering business, should I be compelled to cook Beef?
My favourite type of drift0r videos
The biggest issue I have with this baker story is... why not just go to a different bakery then? Okay, so one store has religious beliefs that they want to uphold? Cool! Respect that, and move on.
Love ur philosophical series!
I just dont see the conflict. To me its easy. Dont discriminate against homosexuals. The christian extremists still enjoy the religious freedom of not showing up on the wedding. Such a non-problem.
Exactly, people are just tryting to use "religous freedom" as an excuse for their irrational hatred, discrimination, and stripping of others rights. religous freedom should just mean everyone has the right to believe what they want, but christians try to make it give them the right to take away the rights of anyone their beliefs disagree with.
@@aj4waffles "christians try to make it give them the right to take away the rights of anyone their beliefs disagree with."
Like?
@@christianponicki9581 A major example of christians trying to take other peoples rights away based on their religion is gays. But i wont be responding to any more of your replies because i can clearly see from the rest of this comment section youre a sad desperate troll who attacks anyone you disagree, like most of the others spewing the same regurgitated biased horseshit without actually adding any real insight of any kind. goodbye.
If capitalism determines what companies succeed/fail, then at the end of the day, a business owner should have the right to discriminate whoever they want given the risk. If they do not want to serve someone with tattoos, so be it. They will lose that customer, and get negative reviews from that community of people, and get less profit. That's capitalism.
Any form of government in the usa cant discriminate how ever corporations businesses small businesses can discriminate
@@Jay-nn8te It's also not true, lol
Should ChickfilA be able to force the airport to host their business? no Should bakers be forced to serve anyone they dont want to? no. Any business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason and any law forcing a business to perform a service even for pay is a violation of the 13th amendment.
1930's Alabama says hello
This is some scary stuff man, im glad religion plays less of a role in the goverment here in the netherlands
I feel like religion shouldn't play ANY role in government, not even a little. I don't wanna get anywhere near a theocracy here in America.
Most of my family lives in the Netherlands. They may let less religion play a role, but start putting little boys or little girls on estrogen or testosterone depending on if they act more girly or boyish... As a happily married man right now, I would've been a female right now if I lived in the Netherlands... (Not according to me, to my family that lives there. Plus we can't get arrested here for saying things that offend people. That's also a nice perk.
The Majestic Spider your gonna hate the constitution then lol
@@neonwhitea.1548 Some of it, sure, that's why the concept of amendments is a good thing for reasonable change.
@Honour AK Well, I'm pretty sure the answer is obvious. The Saudi government would most likely have them (or their parents) executed, or at the very least, jailed for it.
Great vod very neutral for most part and made it clear your opinions are your own. Love it I'm sure someone will take offense some how but overall amazing as usual. Keep doing philosophical videos from time to time there good way to spice up your content.
Imagine a world where people were logical.
Chick-Fil-A would be open on Sundays!
Except *IT IS* logical. Sunday is the Day of Rest decreed by the Lord, therefore the owners of the business close it on Sundays to observe it.
Logic and Religion are not mutually exclusive. Not least of which because throughout the Middle Ages until after the Enlightenment, all of the Philosophers in the West were devoutly practicing Christians, nor the fact that all human beings, including the most logical ones today, either are a member of a publically recognzied religion or have a personal/private religion of their own.
@@GreyWolfLeaderTW I mean in terms of people actually being logical rather than religious. People that believe in evolution AND creationism...like no that doesn't work. People that believe God gave them a special voice or ability. No it's called hereditary, genetics, hard work..
@@Avvura religious people can't be logical?
@@princez.2648 I guess depending on their level of faith. But no, most are not. You can't be religious and logical. It's one or the other.
@@Avvura why though? There can't be grey between the black and white?
I get what you're saying, but it seems very absolutist the way you put it.
I don't understand why these videos aren't more popular.
Stop being butthurt about EVERYTHING!! Just go somewhere else and don't give them your money! Simple!!
Imagine being Black in the 1930s and having nobody anywhere accept your money.
@@Drift0r it's 2019... if they chose to push away business and receive criticisms for it then let them! Forcing people against their beliefs even being a public business makes no sense! Tons of other places to go, pick one that isn't hating on your sexuality or religion!
@@Drift0r Now imagine waking up in 2019, where everyone accepts everyone else's money, and the actual issue facing us isn't racism but instead reckless accusations of it, and the lives those accusations ruin on a regular basis. Novel thought, and it goes basically un-entertained by most of UA-cam's self-proclaimed intelligentsia.
So many people asking "Why wont this [insert religious/political group] bakery make my [thing that completely goes against their core beliefs] cake?!" but not a single one of them has asked "Uh, why don't I just get a cake from a bakery that DOESN'T hate me or have a problem with my beliefs?" Like, there are tons of different bakeries and cake shops everywhere in their home towns and they choose to buy one from someone who objects to their particular cake? Whatever happened to just telling them "Whatever, bigot. I'm going to take my money elsewhere and get it from some other cake shop." and moving on with their day. Not since Blizzard or Bethesda fanboys have I ever seen someone so stubbornly willing to give their money to someone that openly hates them.
This is of course giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming they're being sincere and they didn't deliberately pick some mom and pop Jeebus bakery for the free outrage publicity. If UA-cam has taught me anything is that people will do *anything* for 15 minutes of fame.
I disagree with drift0r, I think a. Private business can refuse service to anyone they want on any grounds they want.
So Jim Crow
@@blahthebiste7924 So be it let the free market determine how things work.
Didn't work too well last time, did it
A private business can.
@@blahthebiste7924 Jim Crow enforced segregation, the opposite of OP.
Idk why I stopped getting you in my recommendations, and I kinda forgot about it too, but it’s good to be back. Always enjoy your commentary.
Came to see which thumbnail won
Keep up the good work! Love that you’re using your platform for important reasons beyond gaming and entertainment.
At the root of all of this, religion becomes a barrier. It seems that religion is the point of contention that if removed, humanity as a whole would be the priority or “loyalty”
You're finally back to philosophical talks
Maybe I'm being naive here because unlike Driftor I have never lived in a place where discriminatory businesses are somewhat common. (Driftor explains what I mean better at around 18:16.) But in my opinion in todays political climate that if a businesses was regularly refusing service to a specific group of people for whatever reason that they would not only obviously lose the customers theyre turning down but many more people would boycott that business because they are discriminating against a specific group which a lot of people would strongly disagree with. So I think businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone they want. However I think the market would essentially force them to provide service to as many people as possible otherwise they would not be able to compete with rival businesses. Thus forcing them to not discriminate. Hope this makes sense.
But why run the risk of going backwards. MLK fought for the right to have desegregated societies. Why run the risk of taking that away?
@@seancooley9931 Well thats why I included the first part of my comment. Ive never lived in a place like that before. I live in New Zealand which, like almost every country, has had serious racial issues in the past. But I feel like it was never as bad as in places like the US. I was just thinking that if a business over here started saying "No (insert race,gender,religion etc) people allowed" that heaps of people would just stop going there until they were either forced to close or forced to change their policies. I dont really know if this is a perfect solution that would work in practice. Just me thinking a loud.
im fairly sure the thing that pissed me off most about the video is how he dared to claim that pop-eyes is better than chick-fil-a
Um because it is give it a try spicy chicken sandwich with that sauce blows you away
i would agree with Drift0r on his opinion. the ability to refuse service like that would eventually lead to Jim crow laws. -sometimes you have to allow the silly to happen in order to let the great ideas flourish. (paraphrased from Drift0r on flag burning).
so i would add that the side to focus on for reform is when I request a service or product that i do have a "right" to, such as healthcare services and products, to buy or rent property, buy a gun, and so on, then they definitely cannot refuse to service, help or sell to me. -and i know healthcare is not yet a constitutional right; but it should be.
Jim Crow laws were illegal since they forced businesses to discriminate, even when the business owner did not want to because it was bloody expensive to have double facilities, one for whites, one for blacks.
If a white baker personally chose to discriminate against blacks however, that is his own business and right to do so. I agree with Barry Goldwater on that one, it is his business and none of yours to tell him he *MUST* serve blacks.
And no, Health Care is *NOT* a Constitutional right of the consumer/recipent. It is the Constitutional right *OF THE PRODUCER* , as it is the labor and property *of the doctor, nurse, pharmacist, et cetera who makes it* .
Advocating a reversal of who has the right of Health Care *enslaves* the producers to the government, makes them serfs compelled to work at the salary the government dictates they will be paid and at the hours, locations, et cetera the government declares.
thank you for educating us and also not completely forcing your bias down our throats, it could be very easy to do that but i feel as though you have a good balance of morality and common sense, so thank you
I wasn't offended till you said Popeyes has a better chicken sandwich... Damn that was cold
A bakery refusing you service doesn't infringe on your rights. The government being able to force you to serve someone you don't want to service DOES infringe on your rights.
Worth noting that during the fight over segregation in the 1960s pro-segregationists pretty much used this same argument: "I shouldn't have to serve black people because I believe God doesn't want me to". So it's not like the worry you spell out at the end there is entirely theoretical, either.
Also something I think it worth mentioning: "joke" religions such as Pastafarianism exist, in part, to point out the flaws in going too far with the idea of "we must always provide an exception to the rules for people's sincere religious beliefs".
completely agree. personally I don't think religious exceptions to any law make sense at all. Its basically saying "you get to do this but only because you follow a certain religion", which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the intention of the first amendment, which exists because the founding fathers rightfully wanted everyone to be treated equally regardless of religious beliefs.
The world is in desperate need of this pure genius mindset that you have Drift0r
The thing that bugs me about that Texas law is that it’s clearly intended to protect Christianity and not any other religions
Christians reserve the right to protect their own religion and exclude others. Same as Muslims have that right in Sharia Law-;practicing countries, or Japan has the same right to protect Shintoism, the national religion of Japan (especially given their Emperor is the head of the Shinto religion, head of State, and is believed by the Japanese to be the literal descendant of their religion's Sun Goddess). That is the beauty of *federalism* and *nationalism* , you aren't beholden to a foreign government that you are not a citizen of.
Discrimination against groups is effectively no different than discrimination against the individual, yet no one bats an eye at the latter. in fact, we all do it constantly.
You don’t have the right to take away other people’s rights
^
That's an oversimplified, nonfunctional way of looking at things.
Loved the commentary on this. More content creators need to open their mouths as bilaterally as you do. Its soooooooooo much more satisfying to hear from all corners of the debate (which is why i also love the comments) and to hear a logical point of view
I feel like if you take the call of duty gameplay out the video it could be used in a classroom
Idk whether or not that was a compliment but your right😆
I mean it's the free market. Yungrippa said it best. Why would you want to give business/money to someone that doesn't like you or lifestyle?
7:58 but I'm not an expert *on* them.
Freedom of speech should win out over discrimination. We can put hatful companies out of business through peaceful boycotting and ostracization. Anti discrimination laws are well meaning and can work but are wrong for forcing someone to do something they don't want to do or believe to be immoral.
That sounds good but doesn't work in practice. If the market supports discrimination the discriminatory company can still survive. Example restaurants in the south used to not hire black people. It was completely discrimination but the companies still survived. There needs to be laws to protect the little man even if it's not popular
@@samgeorge4798 If the market supports discrimination, then so does the culture. And if the culture supports it, then so does the government. As with welfare and every other tenant of leftist politics, once your government is in the position to support it, the problem is already solved.
@@christianponicki9581 the government is charged with treating all people equally. They don't get the luxury of double standards. Even if the majority wants it differently. It's not leftist policy it's the Constitution
@@samgeorge4798 "the government is charged", which government, by what law, and by whose or what authority? Also, my previous comment was an observation of society per se, and I don't know how yours even qualifies as a reply.
I'm from Indiana. I believe in the RFRA but it's a tough situation to be honest. It's 2 freedoms conflicting with each other. Just I really don't like the state forcing anybody to do anything really, so the less of that the better.
Daniel Kinney how would it be your right to discriminate against say, my best friend and her girlfriend, while not being an awful me( a cishet white dude) why is that fair? I know for a fact I am probably going to be a worse customer(at least toward you) then she, is yet you will make me a wedding cake for my dog wedding but not a wedding cake for their actual wedding(for example)
McGillicuddy7 Pasco I mean I theoretically would bake a cake for anybody. Just saying you shouldn't be allowed to force somebody to make you a cake.
Love these type of videos
In regards to that passage you mention about women not being able to speak in the church: that specific passage was written because in Corinth specifically the women in the church were causing disturbances to the service in several different ways. Paul was basically like hey girls please be quiet while the service is going on
Snickidy but why was it included in the Bible then? It doesn’t seem like something worth being there
@@eminsarabsky6368 I concur, the idea that women today should be responsible for the alleged actions of those about a thousand years ago, and abide by a ridiculous rule that was put in place because somehow they were able to predict a thousand years later that women would do the same thing, is frankly absurd.
@@eminsarabsky6368 because the entire letter to Corinth includes good insight as to how a bad church operates. A lot of Paul's letters follow that formula
I may disagree, but I appreciate your thoughts and perspective of this issue, don't stop thinking and have a wonderful day!
Lol and cod in the background
The tattoo and haircut thing was in the Old Testament, hence no Christian should believe it still in affect. The tattoo thing in particular was referring to pagan tradition where they poured ink into the body via cutting them open and literally pouring the ink into the cut. It was a funeral tradition
Was about to hop off my phone and then this popped up.
To be fair Drift, I dont feel like "understanding the other side" when peoples lives are on the line i.e your examples pertaining to medical professionals refusing care on religious grounds.
Whoever you are, you should be getting help in a hospital
who? drift0r?
I'll take a European stance here because I'm Belgian but I don't know how it is possible to not help someone if you are a doctor. Under Belgian law, you would be legally forced to provide care to anyone for various reason. Broadly speaking, it would be an infringement on the duty to help which binds all citizens and is established in the Criminal Code. It is also an infraction of the person's constitutional rights as the Belgian Constitution guarantees a right to human dignity which includes a right to "social security, health care and to social, medical and legal aid". Finally, it would probably mean medical malpractice and the revocation of the doctor's licence.
Loïc van der Wielen we take a Hippocratic oath to serve all regardless of religion, race, gender, or wealth. Anyone who abandons this is no healer in my eyes.
@@prouddegenerates9056 Maybe but it's not legally binding (here at least). The deontological code of the Medical Order (which all doctors exercising in Belgium has to be registered to) is another matter as a doctor can see the medical licence revoked (i.e. he can be expelled) is another matter and clear infringement is considered medical malpractice.
While its Article 28 states that a doctor can refuse, for personal or professional reasons, non-urgent care (as long as he ensures continuity of the care and collaborates with his replacement), Article 5 states that a doctor has to provide care to all "with the same conscience" regardless of their social situation, nationality, opinions/convictions/beliefs, reputation or what he thinks of them.
In the end, oaths don't matter (or rather only have the value one gives to them) and more other than not, people can be very selective on their application of the oath they take or the principle they choose to follow. To take Drift0r's examples, in his first example, one could put what he believes God's command to be above his own word. In this case, the only solution is either to make a law forcing every doctor to treat patient regardless of race/religion/sexual orientation/gender/opinions/etc. or find a religious argument that will counter their stance. In this case, the Parable of the Good Samaritan seems to be a good fit.
I really love this kind of videos and I hope if u create a new channel about these topics
Why can’t we all just get along? Respect each other and what not.
Because if I don't have the same views as the liberals, then I'm a bigot and a racist. It's like I'm not allowed my own opinion anymore lol
@@GamerBah if people are calling you a racist then I think you should think before you speak.
@@davidinass
Because every accusation of racism is supported, by reason and facts? Wait what, that is not the case?
Because that just makes too much sense...
@@davidinass I do! It is actually those quick to shout racist, who are the ones who should think before they speak.
The reality is a business may deny service at anytime. They just can’t admit why.
Race is not by choice and not open for criticism.
But religion is, you can join or leave a religion at anytime you want, and should be criticised as any other choice in life can be.
@David Chavez Exactly. I don't choose to be white, straight etc but i can choose to be Hindu or whatever.
As an atheist, I'm prone to disagree.
How does it follow that race shouldn't be open for criticism? That's the mindset that pushes science denial in the field of evolutionary biology among others.
@@Larcona_ Which is your opinion and choice. Not something that I agree with.
@@autisticphaglosophy7128 So criticism of say a black man that was born into a race he had no choice over is fine? Of course its not
I had a teacher who quoted something in class one day: "The right for one man to throw his fist ends where another mans nose begins".
Tries to have a pseudo-legal discussion about Constitutional Law, does not spell religious correctly in the title of the video. Brutal video.
You've probably never had a typo in your life.
@@Drift0r Your typo was emblematic of the quality and bias of the content. If you want to have a real 1st Amendment discussion, let's have it.
I agree with the Jim Crow thing. I don't agree with the jumping through tons of hoops to get the ability to descriminate. I think it would give to much leeway for those companies to descriminate.
I love TX....but I hate our gov here.
Some stuff sucks, but it's nice that they don't keep blurring the lines of the amendments.
I know you’ve considered leaving cod before, and if you ever feel that way again, i would love if you start doing full time political,social, etc commentaries! you make very insightful and interesting commentaries and i would have no issue if you just made this every few days instead of cod