Do you feel that you should be able to hold hands with a same sex partner in plain view of everyone else when you make them uncomfortable?

Do you feel that you should be able to be trans in plain view of everyone else when you make them uncomfortable?

Maybe people being uncomfortable is not a good yardstick for determining what people can do in public.

It’s personal and private and children shouldn’t be exposed to it. It’s not wrong, and you can do it, but keep it away from me and mine.

Have you considered being less nosy? Minding your business?

I’m no lover of religion but I love this culture policing even less.

The context made it so that people conflates the two.

Medias and public debates pretty much always framed the issue of religion in public as a racist thing (in order to get more views) instead of only talking how the CAQ government targetted non-christian religions with their bill.

Sure, you can be against it for authoritarian reasons as well. Disturbing.

So someone praying before a meal is an equivalent obscenity?

Then don’t be in that space?

So you feel the same when a bunch of people are meditating? Same action, really.

I would say about the same number of people are offended by profanity in public as they are religious acts in public. Moreover, I would estimate the number who are offended by sex acts in public is much higher than either of these. So, for the sake of other people’s sensibilities, shall we ban public profanity?

I don’t really see how that’s related. Even if it were motivated by racism, that’d be equally authoritarian to any other motive, since authoritarianism is about ceding rights from individuals to the government and it doesn’t matter what the motivation for that is.

live and let live. your discomfort is all your own.

Religion has been used time and time again to justify committing atrocities and still used as such today.

There is a legitimate debate to be had about the religion’s place in a society.

That’s my issue as well with the bill. Just look at the crucifix at the Assembly. They didn’t remove it, they just moved it outside the room. If the intent of the law was really to remove religion from the public space, it wouldn’t have been a debate about keeping the crucifix in the Assembly.

People are uncomfortable with it explicitly because religion made it so.

Monkeys will fuck right in front of us and not give a shit.

Fair enough: regardless of whether racism is involved or not, there is an authoritarian bent to this law. In my opinion.

So, you and I both know that public praying isn’t just people being in public standing around praying without anyone knowing they’re praying.

If a person went to a restaurant and started vocally praising Satan for this meal for an hour prior to eating it… yeah I bet they would make a lot of people uncomfortable. Not to mention the restaurant would refuse them service.

What you want to do is justify bothering people in public spaces with your beliefs. If you can stand around in public thinking about your god without letting anyone else know you’re doing it, then no one would be uncomfortable.

Do you feel that you should be able to hold hands with a same sex partner in plain view of everyone else when you make them uncomfortable?

Yes, you can hold hands and you can hold your bible. You can also be a believer in god while also walking in public. You can even wear a rainbow or a crucifix to identify your own kind. But, keep your void damned pants on and don’t scream out praising your god.

Do you feel that you should be able to be trans in plain view of everyone else when you make them uncomfortable?

Yes trans is a person being who they are. Religion is a choice.

Maybe people being uncomfortable is not a good yardstick for determining what people can do in public.

I don’t disagree that “uncomfortable” is a slippery slope word. And while I completely agree with banning prayer in public—I probably wouldn’t vote for it. Unlike religious people, I dislike forcing my views on people, even if their entire existence is doing that.

If you aren’t able to see how a comparison between two things does not create a combination of those two things, then you aren’t intelligent enough to converse in a polite manor. I’ve provided more details in my other comments, you can read those without interacting with me.

Then that’s not prayer, it’s being a public nuisance, a disturber of the peace. That’s a different crime / tort that I’m sure is already on the books.

The prayer part is irrelevant.

There’s a precedent like this in the US: enhancement laws

They ruin lives, and don’t stop crime.

Blocking traffic is an offense of its own. We don’t need this law.

It just so happens that it always boils down to policing what Muslims do. Just one big coincidence.