christian groups on FB

hbmbc30
hbmbc30's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2012-06-16
User is offlineOffline
christian groups on FB

ok i have no prob with xstian groups on Facebook but i have had a few of my liked sites that are atheist oriented recieve death threats from a muslim woman plus they have had sites banned due to theists complaining about them.. and that infringes on freedome of speech... the theists are allowed to post their stuff but if we atheists do its wrong... im sick and freakin tired of these damn xstian groups trying to and in some cases succeeding in silencing differing views than their own... it burns me up to no end when they pull that crap... anyone else out there had this problem?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Haven't noticed it

But I'm stuck with a Jehovah's Witness for a sister and some Bahai friends.  I try not to pay too much attention to them and post what I please.  I haven't noticed any of my atheist friends or pages being pulled or censored.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I haven't, but then I almost

I haven't, but then I almost never use it in the first place. I look at these sites as something you should have, just in case you need to contact someone or they need to contact you (and to reserve a username so noone can easily pretend to be you), but beyond that you're just advertising your life if you get into it too much.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
hbmbc30 wrote:ok i have no

hbmbc30 wrote:

ok i have no prob with xstian groups on Facebook but i have had a few of my liked sites that are atheist oriented recieve death threats from a muslim woman plus they have had sites banned due to theists complaining about them.. and that infringes on freedome of speech... the theists are allowed to post their stuff but if we atheists do its wrong... im sick and freakin tired of these damn xstian groups trying to and in some cases succeeding in silencing differing views than their own... it burns me up to no end when they pull that crap... anyone else out there had this problem?

Here is the grey area about "freedom of speech".

First off, from the Constitution standpoint it only addresses that the government cannot have you arrested or jailed or sentenced merely for having an unpopular opinion. But in daily life it is unreasonable to expect private entities like a strip joint to be forced to hire fat men. And it would be unreasonable for a Mosque to hire a Christian or atheist as a cleric.

Having said that we have had a tradition in law long term that has given rights to women and blacks despite what private business does.

There is no utopia in a constant struggle in the west balancing "freedom" with "rights", because everyone has a different idea of what freedom and rights are, and of course those things always lean to the personal desires of the person using those words.

You say that you have seen atheists banned at believer's sites? So, I have been on line over the past 11 years and while not all the atheists sites I frequent, some atheist sites have the same hair trigger ban as the theist ones I have been booted off of.

BUT the comfort to both sides of the issue is that OUR government cannot have their website banned or ours banned or either side arrested merely because we don't like each other.

Please do not mix the private sector with what government has a duty to protect for all of us.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I tend to avoid

I tend to avoid Christians

 

 

 


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:hbmbc30

Brian37 wrote:

hbmbc30 wrote:

ok i have no prob with xstian groups on Facebook but i have had a few of my liked sites that are atheist oriented recieve death threats from a muslim woman plus they have had sites banned due to theists complaining about them.. and that infringes on freedome of speech... the theists are allowed to post their stuff but if we atheists do its wrong... im sick and freakin tired of these damn xstian groups trying to and in some cases succeeding in silencing differing views than their own... it burns me up to no end when they pull that crap... anyone else out there had this problem?

Here is the grey area about "freedom of speech".

First off, from the Constitution standpoint it only addresses that the government cannot have you arrested or jailed or sentenced merely for having an unpopular opinion. But in daily life it is unreasonable to expect private entities like a strip joint to be forced to hire fat men. And it would be unreasonable for a Mosque to hire a Christian or atheist as a cleric.

Having said that we have had a tradition in law long term that has given rights to women and blacks despite what private business does.

There is no utopia in a constant struggle in the west balancing "freedom" with "rights", because everyone has a different idea of what freedom and rights are, and of course those things always lean to the personal desires of the person using those words.

You say that you have seen atheists banned at believer's sites? So, I have been on line over the past 11 years and while not all the atheists sites I frequent, some atheist sites have the same hair trigger ban as the theist ones I have been booted off of.

BUT the comfort to both sides of the issue is that OUR government cannot have their website banned or ours banned or either side arrested merely because we don't like each other.

Please do not mix the private sector with what government has a duty to protect for all of us.

 

 

 

In New Mexico, a Christian Photographer was sued and the government is forcing her to take wedding photos of a lesbian couple even though the photographer felt it violated their religious beliefs.   I certainly don't  think that's right.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:  In New

TWD39 wrote:

 

 

In New Mexico, a Christian Photographer was sued and the government is forcing her to take wedding photos of a lesbian couple even though the photographer felt it violated their religious beliefs.   I certainly don't  think that's right.

Link to that article please ? I'd like to review what that lawsuit is about and specifically what it states.

Strange as it may sound, I have to agree with you there. The government shouldn't force bigots to take pictures of weddings they don't approve of.

I for one, would not want a photographer that hates bikers taking pictures of motorcycle runs and rallies and definitely would not want the government to say otherwise.

I suspect there is more to this story.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4429
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Link

harleysportster wrote:

Link to that article please ? I'd like to review what that lawsuit is about and specifically what it states.

Strange as it may sound, I have to agree with you there. The government shouldn't force bigots to take pictures of weddings they don't approve of.

I for one, would not want a photographer that hates bikers taking pictures of motorcycle runs and rallies and definitely would not want the government to say otherwise.

I suspect there is more to this story.

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865557098/New-Mexico-photographer-loses-third-round-of-gay-discrimination-case-but-attorneys-vow-fight-isnt.html?pg=all

The court decision is available here and has a brief summary of the facts that were not disputed.   

Court of Appeals decision wrote:

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Factual History

{2} Elane Photography is a limited liability company owned by Elaine and Jonathan

Huguenin. Elaine Huguenin also serves as Elane Photography’s head photographer. Elane

Photography offers photography services to the public on a commercial basis and primarily

photographs significant life events such as weddings and graduations. However, Elane

Photography has a policy of only photographing life events that communicate messages

consistent with the Huguenin’s personal and religious beliefs. Elane Photography solicits

customers by offering its services through its website, advertisements on multiple search

engines, and in the Yellow Pages.

{3} This case arose when Willock, who was involved in a same-sex relationship, emailed

Elane Photography to inquire about photography for her upcoming commitment ceremony.

Willock indicated in the email that this would be a “same-gender ceremony.” Elane

Photography quickly responded, thanking Willock for her interest but explaining that Elane

Photography photographs “traditional weddings.” Unsure what Elane Photography meant

by “traditional weddings,” Willock sent a second email asking Elane Photography to clarify

whether it “does not offer [its] photography services to same-sex couples.” Elane

Photography responded affirmatively, stating, “[y]es, you are correct in saying we do not

photograph same-sex weddings,” and again thanked Willock for her interest in Elane

Photography.

{4} Partner, without disclosing her same-sex relationship with Willock, sent an email to

Elane Photography the next day. The email mentioned that Partner was getting married butdid not specify whether the marriage was same-sex or “traditional.” Partner also asked Elane

Photography whether it would be willing to travel for a wedding. Elane Photography

responded that it would be willing to travel and included pricing information. Elane

Photography also offered to meet with Partner to discuss options. When Elane Photography

did not hear back from Partner, it sent a follow-up email to determine if Partner had any

questions about the offered services.

B. Procedural History

{5} In December 2006, Willock filed a discrimination claim with the New Mexico

Human Rights Commission (NMHRC) alleging that Elane Photography refused to offer its

photographic services to Willock because of her sexual orientation. The NMHRC

determined that Elane Photography was a “public accommodation” under NMSA 1978,

Section 28-1-2(H) (2007). The NMHRC further determined that the evidence demonstrated

that Elane Photography violated Section 28-1-7(F) by discriminating against Willock based

upon her sexual orientation. The NMHRC ordered Elane Photography to pay Willock

$6,637.94 in attorney fees and costs. Willock did not seek monetary damages.

 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Beyond

Thanks Beyond.

Well here is the way that I see it.

If I asked a photographer to photograph a biker event and they e-mailed me back stating that biker events went against their beliefs, I'd probably tell them to shove it and seek elsewhere.

I think I would have the same attitude if I was gay. I'd probably tell the photographer that not only would I not want them there, but that I would let everyone in the gay community know not to use their services and let them pay for it by the possible loss of revenue from people both gay and pro-same sex marriage alike that would no longer request business from them.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4429
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Thanks

harleysportster wrote:

Thanks Beyond.

Well here is the way that I see it.

If I asked a photographer to photograph a biker event and they e-mailed me back stating that biker events went against their beliefs, I'd probably tell them to shove it and seek elsewhere.

I think I would have the same attitude if I was gay. I'd probably tell the photographer that not only would I not want them there, but that I would let everyone in the gay community know not to use their services and let them pay for it by the possible loss of revenue from people both gay and pro-same sex marriage alike that would no longer request business from them.

 

I agree completely. I always thought that using the tides of public opinion to make being a bigot socially unacceptable and unprofitable is preferable to using government to attempt to force people to get along.

However, from a legal standpoint I do not think that Elane Photography has a very strong argument, it is well established that the government can make discrimination illegal for any company that is open to the public and I don't see how one can argue that holding a religious belief somehow makes you exempt from those laws. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:However,

Beyond Saving wrote:

However, from a legal standpoint I do not think that Elane Photography has a very strong argument, it is well established that the government can make discrimination illegal for any company that is open to the public and I don't see how one can argue that holding a religious belief somehow makes you exempt from those laws. 

I don't think they have a very strong case either.

That's one thing a lot of my co-workers don't get. Too often I hear them say " Man, fuck working for these people. I'm thinking about starting my own business and then I can play by my own rules."

Sounds well and good until you start your own business ( my late father had one) and then you have to play by the public's rules (if you want to stay afloat that is).

The last thing a bigot needs to do in today's world is run a public business. At least, if they expect to build a strong customer base and grow.

Some people might be afraid to do business with said company for fear of being branded as a bigot as well.

For instance, my girlfriend's younger sister is currently looking for a job. She lives within two seconds of a chick-fil-a that is currently got a help wanted sign. She told me she desperately needs a job, but was afraid to work there for fear that some of her lesbian friends might think she was anti-gay or something.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Good on the courts for

Good on the courts for putting an end to the oppressive nature of the way the studio does business. Minorities are protected for good reason.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Good on the

Vastet wrote:
Good on the courts for putting an end to the oppressive nature of the way the studio does business. Minorities are protected for good reason.

The photographers were indeed very stupid on something like this. Plus they were dumbasses to not jump at a chance to get paid.

I guess I am just a slut when it comes to making money. If I was a photographer, as long as someone wanted to cross my palm with silver, I'd photograph a guy marrying a cow.

I would draw the line on photographing rape/murder or said guy having sex with cow. But that might be about all.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I always

Beyond Saving wrote:
I always thought that using the tides of public opinion to make being a bigot socially unacceptable and unprofitable is preferable to using government to attempt to force people to get along.

I don't see any real difference except in the method of coercion.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4429
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Beyond Saving

Manageri wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
I always thought that using the tides of public opinion to make being a bigot socially unacceptable and unprofitable is preferable to using government to attempt to force people to get along.

I don't see any real difference except in the method of coercion.

I would say the difference between the hard coercion of exercising a governments police power and the soft coercion of people deciding they do not want to associate with you because you are an asshole is a very significant difference. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson