Lil Red Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [url="http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/07/22/2010-07-22_staten_island_catholic_church_board_blocks_sale_of_old_convent_building_for_musl.html"]Article[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffpugh Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Read. No, and no. It's their building, they can do what they want with it. It's America! Everyone has a right to do what they want with their property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='23 July 2010 - 11:52 AM' timestamp='1279900372' post='2146787'] Read. No, and no. It's their building, they can do what they want with it. It's America! Everyone has a right to do what they want with their property. [/quote] Just because it is their right doesn't mean it's not motivated by bigotry. If I refuse to sell my house to those stinkin' Canadiens, wouldn't you say that I am bigoted against canadiens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='23 July 2010 - 11:52 AM' timestamp='1279900372' post='2146787'] Read. No, and no. It's their building, they can do what they want with it. It's America! Everyone has a right to do what they want with their property. [/quote] Yeah! Kind of live how in American restaurants, the owner has a right to not serve black people! Oh, wait... The board may well have been in their legal rights. That doesn't mean that the popular protests were not fueled by raw bigotry and this priest and the board should be ashamed of themselves for caving. If the sale were contrary to cannon law then that would be fine. But the Priest was fine with the sale until the angry hordes came to beesh. His turn around and the boards decision wasn't based on principle. It was a shameful act of deference to enraged stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='Hassan' date='23 July 2010 - 11:56 AM' timestamp='1279900576' post='2146788'] Just because it is their right doesn't mean it's not motivated by bigotry. If I refuse to sell my house to those stinkin' Canadiens, wouldn't you say that I am bigoted against canadiens? [/quote] I had the same thought. It's like we're one mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffpugh Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='Hassan' date='23 July 2010 - 11:56 AM' timestamp='1279900576' post='2146788'] Just because it is their right doesn't mean it's not motivated by bigotry. If I refuse to sell my house to those stinkin' Canadiens, wouldn't you say that I am bigoted against canadiens? [/quote] That's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffpugh Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='notardillacid' date='23 July 2010 - 12:01 PM' timestamp='1279900879' post='2146790'] Yeah! Kind of live how in American restaurants, the owner has a right to not serve black people! Oh, wait... The board may well have been in their legal rights. That doesn't mean that the popular protests were not fueled by raw bigotry and this priest and the board should be ashamed of themselves for caving. If the sale were contrary to cannon law then that would be fine. But the Priest was fine with the sale until the angry hordes came to beesh. His turn around and the boards decision wasn't based on principle. It was a shameful act of deference to enraged stupidity. [/quote] The black man in a restaurant example is a fallacy. This is not a public building, nor was it intended to be that way. It is a convent in the NY archdiocese. Usually convents are built to keep people out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='23 July 2010 - 12:20 PM' timestamp='1279902037' post='2146798'] The black man in a restaurant example is a fallacy. This is not a public building, nor was it intended to be that way. It is a convent in the NY archdiocese. Usually convents are built to keep people out. [/quote] I don't know about Communist Canada, but most restaurants are private establishments in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffpugh Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I meant they're "open to the public". Hence why they have "open" signs and flashing lights and a clear path to the front door Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='23 July 2010 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1279902291' post='2146801'] I meant they're "open to the public". Hence why they have "open" signs and flashing lights and a clear path to the front door [/quote] Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the deafening [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_4kKZ2-bv0[/media] chant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='23 July 2010 - 12:20 PM' timestamp='1279902037' post='2146798'] The black man in a restaurant example is a fallacy. This is not a public building, nor was it intended to be that way. It is a convent in the NY archdiocese. Usually convents are built to keep people out. [/quote] Ok, I refuse to see my home to a black family because they are black and my neighbors don't want black people living next door. Go check out how legal that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Either way, the question is not whether this is legal but whether it is an instance of bigotry, which it clearly is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 A great many people might have protested due to bigotry (as it's meant within this thread), but it's not certain that one might refuse to sell land to a certain religious group due to bigotry (as it's meant within this thread). I would sell my home to just about anyone (though probably not an investor) if I knew it would remain a home. If I knew it was planned to build something of which I did not morally or religiously approve, I would probably not sell. I also believe a storeowner may refuse service based upon some kind of racism, sexism or whatever unseemly isms exist out there. I likewise believe that accepted customers would have an obligation to forgo custom with that business and explain why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='23 July 2010 - 11:52 AM' timestamp='1279900372' post='2146787'] Read. No, and no. It's their building, they can do what they want with it. It's America! Everyone has a right to do what they want with their property. [/quote] The short answer, right there. Not selling a building or land to people whose religious ideology you disagree with is not bigotry. I've known nice-enough Muslims, but I wouldn't sell a building to be used for purposes of propagating Islam, just as I wouldn't sell it to the Church of Scientology, Jack Chick ministries, or an atheistic organization. Some years back, Christendom College was in the process of trying to buy some surrounding land, but the deal was blocked when the elderly owner (I believe it was his son who was going to sell it) refused to sell the land to Catholics. I would regard the owner as bigoted, but he's perfectly in his rights not to sell the land, just as Christendom would not be required to sell land to anti-Catholics. To have government or courts decide what land must be sold to whom and what does and does not constitute "bigotry" in selling land would set a very dangerous precedent. Edited July 23, 2010 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffpugh Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='Socrates' date='23 July 2010 - 01:45 PM' timestamp='1279907123' post='2146846'] The short answer, right there. Not selling a building or land to people whose religious ideology you disagree with is not bigotry. I've known nice-enough Muslims, but I wouldn't sell a building to be used for purposes of propagating Islam, just as I wouldn't sell it to the Church of Scientology, Jack Chick ministries, or an atheistic organization. Some years back, Christendom College was in the process of trying to buy some surrounding land, but the deal was blocked when the elderly owner (I believe it was his son who was going to sell it) refused to sell the land to Catholics. I would regard the owner as bigoted, but he's perfectly in his rights not to sell the land, just as Christendom would not be required to sell land to anti-Catholics. To have government or courts decide what land must be sold to whom and what does and does not constitute "bigotry" in selling land would set a very dangerous precedent. [/quote] Thank you! It seems I get the American thing than most Americans . I agree. Governments shouldn't tell us what we can do with our property. Even with the straw-man fallacy of bringing up "no black man can come in my restaurant!". Honestly, Governments shouldn't be our consciences. The good should be decided and propagated by the populous. Besides, the government stepping in here would be a violation of one or two of your amendments (on the grounds of religious freedom and non-partisanship). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now