However, we don’t feel they should be exempt from punishment due to their freedom of speech; their posts were gravely inappropriate and offensive. They intentionally discriminated against a group of people; they had no regards to other’s statuses as human beings which in our honest opinion is extremely unethical. Every human being should be treated with respect regardless of their culture, ethnicity, race, gender, etc. Johnny's leadership roles within his school simply doesn’t convince us that he was bullied into discriminating others, so we feel that he too should face the consequences. As a leader he should have known better.
Moreover, it has him unconditionally questioning every aspect of his life, even his faith which has accompanied him thus far. “He was starting to believe that he might not be serious in his faith.” (Wallace 151) To someone that isn’t one hundred percent devoted to their faith it may seem strange, but be assured instances like this are very common in the real world as well. This is all a result of most religions having strict guidelines to follow when it comes to topics such as premarital sex and abortion. “Premarital sex involves any kind of sexual contact prior to entering into a legal marriage relationship. There are a number of reasons why Scripture and traditional Christianity oppose this.
James Rachels has a better argument than Ruth Benedict in defending Moral or Cultural relativism. Rachel agreed that the fact supporting the proposition for Cultural Relativism does not support the argument. Benedict argues from a functionality standpoint, where she used certain human traits to support her argument as being abhorrent in some society but being adequately functional in another society. Though Rachel and Benedict still drew the same analogy of using Homosexuality as an example of abhorrence in one society as being acceptable in another, Rachel argues that it is a matter of moral relativism and cannot be right or wrong, rather it depends on the society one is drawing his or her moral codes from, but Benedict is arguing from the
Persuasive Writing Techniques Taelyr Simmons University Of Houston Same sex marriage is a disputable topic that has raised controversy in the United States political system. The issue has been a constant recurring discussion between liberals and conservatives. Those in favor of same sex marriage argue on the basis that love conquers all, so everyone should be able to marry the person they love. Many decisions made by politicians on the issue are based off of their religious beliefs. The United States constitution vows to separate church and state, leaving religious opinions out of equation, but because the board legislation is predominantly white, Christians, males, the ideals behind separating church and state are disregarded.
In doing so, he would be violating his own religious beliefs. As granted by the First Amendment, Phillips’ has the right to do this under both the protection of Free Speech, as cake making is an inherent form of artistic expression, and the Free Exercise clause. The Colorado Court of Appeals understood the artistic quality of cake-making, but claimed that Phillips’ custom cakes did not fall under
The commission had told him that he can't make this complaint since it wasn't under the Individual's Right Protection Act because it didn't include the sexual orientation act. The judge found that the judge had protection against discrimination on the basis which was an unjustified violation of section 15 of the charter. The respondents have claimed and voiced their opinion by saying that the case concerns the legislative under section 15 that it
During its time in the public eye, this case has been a hot button topic for many wanting to chime in with their opinion across the United States. Some cry that discriminating based on sexual orientation is just the same as any other type of discrimination, while others insist that Mr. Phillips had every right to deny customers because he ran a private business. As the arguments
In his argument, Balmer fails to respond to Matthew 5:31 where Jesus forbids divorce except in cases of abuse. Instead, he focuses on the fact that Christians now “accept” divorce. Does studying divorce rates among Christians truly refute the Biblical position on divorce? If it did, it would mean if a Christian lied or stole, the Bible would support lying and stealing. People cannot evaluate the character of Jesus by a person who claims to follow Jesus as many Christians fall susceptible to sin and deviate from the Bible.
However, just like how John Proctor failed to persuade the judges of the court and the people of Salem, LGB people are demonized for their beliefs and are almost hopeless in being accepted and valued. Nonheterosexuality should be “stud[ied] without fear”, but because of “political restraint” (What), room for understanding and accepting in the media is lost. While Salem, conquered by Puritan beliefs and traditions cannot accept those who deviate from the norm, today’s society cannot accept or understand LGB people, and therefore LGB
in this global changing atmosphere that different issues such as same-sex marriage start to be respected and accepted, the catholic church resist on the opposition stand. On the aspect of morality, they share the right of marriage as normal people, we should not discriminate and abandon them. Yet, it is a infringement to gods commands in the perspective of christian. I had a meantime on facing others challenge on this topic. The conflict between morality and religion.