My point is it should be a two way street.
It really is just a matter of ideology.
Maybe I see it differently because I view both racial division and religion as a distraction from the things humanity needs to focus on.
I'm not trying to attack you my friend. We just don't agree on this issue. And that's fine. Intellectual and honest discussion is imperative to understanding each other. I look forward to reading your work and having more discussion like this because our viewpoints are obviously different. If we keep the communication open minded it is almost guaranteed that one of us will learn something that wasn't easily seen from our own perspectives.
Sorry if I seem abrasive.
I'm no longer religious but one of the more important passages from the Bible to me was the story of the Tower of Babel.
Gen 11:6
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
I truly believe there is truth in this piece of scripture. Division is what I'm against because it suppresses progress.
But if it is okay for one business to refuse service it should be okay for all to do so equally. IMO
I'm an anarchist though and believe law should be extinguished and judgement left in the hands of individuals.
I say let the "free market" of the human condition set the price. Eventually it will all even out.
If you read below you'll see I didn't think of them as an intermediary service that is hurting an invidual by denying business to them. Maybe the owner of the facility had a problem with it?
I don't take any offense at differing points of view. However, you called me a hypocrite, so I responded with why I viewed the two issues as different matters -- the right to religious freedom versus imposing arbitrary and ambiguous moral principles after the point of sale or contract.
You seem, in my opinion, surprised that I responded to your accusation, but surely, you must have known I would? Not only did you call me a hypocrite, but you also used foul language and a bizarrely violent hypothetical scenario about grandmothers being murdered with screwdrivers. In a follow-up post, you throw in a verse from Genesis?
If you genuinely want a proper discourse, you should avoid the ad homonym and unnecessarily violent depictions. Certainly, you should avoid lecturing me about "intellectual and honest" discussions when you came after me guns blazing.
And for the record, my friends don't use accusatory language -- they just address points of agreement or disagreement.
I feel that it is hypocritical.
This is mainly because in my opinion religion is a set of arbitrary and ambiguous moral principles.
You can't argue with how I feel/felt.
The only reason I have changed my mind on this at all is the fact that airbnb is an intermediary denying money to an individual who may or may not want that.
I've also brought up the point that maybe the individual didn't want their property leased to these people as well, and that airbnb is acting upon their behalf.
I was obviously trying to disarm the conversation with my follow up comment.
How could you expect a post written with incendiary commentary to be greeted with anything resembling cordiality?
P.S. It's "ad hominem".
I can't argue with how you feel? By that logic, then you can't argue with how anyone feels! And by further logical extension, my commentary is only incendiary -- a quite ludicrous descriptor -- to YOU!
I'll reiterate that I don't care that you disagree with me. What irritates me is your lack of conviction. If you want to come at me, then come at me. I respect that, irrespective of differences of opinion.
What I do not respect is your hedged commentary, where you attack me while calling me a friend. Like I said, just attack me. I respected you for your original comment (outside of the "my friend" business).
Your second post is where I lost a measure of respect, first with the reiteration of "my friend" nonsense, and patronizing me with your "honest discussion" diatribe (particularly as YOU are the one calling me out).
Finally, I don't believe that inclusion and tolerance is sacrosanct, as who we are asked to include, and what we are asked to tolerate, are increasingly antithetical to conservative principles. Perhaps THIS is the root of your disagreement with me.
Whatever it is, my real friends know full well my beliefs so none of my commentary is a surprise to them as it apparently was to you.
In full disclosure, my generally conservative outlook is unlikely to change. If you had a different idea of who I am, then be forewarned that you may find my future work to be offensive. However, I will not back down and I will continue to exercise my free speech as I choose.
If that's fine with you, then welcome aboard! If not, I'm sure there are plenty of accounts that suit your ideological tastes ... they outnumber us conservatives, that I'm certain.
The troll in me loves this.
Of course I'll be back.