(June 27, 2018 at 10:24 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(June 27, 2018 at 10:15 am)Shell B Wrote: I think that's the metric used now to gauge what's correct, and I think it's a relatively fair one. You can refuse service to someone who chooses not to wear shoes, chooses to swear loudly, makes a fuss, etc. You can't/shouldn't if a person is handicapped and needs help, is a certain race, gender, nationality, sexuality. These things we don't choose, and it's not fair to make opinions about people based on these qualities.
For the record, I do think we have a choice in what we believe. We can choose to educate ourselves and evolve intellectually or not. Of course, you can't help it if you're an idiot, and concessions should be made for dummies.
Ok, there would be a difference then, you can’t choose who you are attracted to. But you can choose what you do afterwards. Just because you are attracted to that persons wife, doesn’t make it ok to act on that impulse. Then you can descriminate?
That makes it categorically not discrimination. "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."
But, yeah. You can't hate on a guy for liking someone's wife, but you can if he bangs wife. Can you turn him away at your business? I think it's a slippery slope, but maybe. Adulterers aren't a protected group. In fact, it's just another example of (some) Christians cherry-picking. They refuse service to gay people, but all the other sinners are fine. We're all technically sinners, but gay people are worthy of condemnation more? Nah, that shit comes from an innate disgust with things that are "different." We can't have people fucking up society with their inability to get past their cootie phase.
