Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:24 pm
Arguing for alternative dishes out of religious reasons would be a religious privilege.
if it's argued for out of a secular reason then it's fine.
I will say again every supporter has said there should be an alternative option but for secular reasons.
I've seen her formulate excellent posts.
This is the best post I've seen in this thread.
Infected Mushroom wrote:Eastern Equestria wrote:
There's no doubt that they're related. This is being done verifiably by right-wing douchebags.
Its irrelevant why the law-makers implemented it.
Focus on whether the policies by themselves are justifiable or not and whether or not their benefits outweigh the costs. Who cares what goes into the minds of the specific law-makers who made the law?
That's question that goes towards assessing the character of the law-makers (which is an unrelated issue); it says nothing about the policy itself.
A benevolent law-maker may create a completely unworkable law with overall negative effects that is unjustifiable. Conversely, the most spiteful law-maker may create a completely workable law with overall positive effects that is justifiable and desirable.
The motivations of the law-makers are irrelevant. ''Oh they implemented it only to spite Muslims'' is irrelevant because 1. you can't read their minds so that's all just speculation and 2. it doesn't prove anything about the policy as it is being implemented and its overall theoretical justification (or lack of) either way, it just shows that its creators adopted a less than desirable mindset, not that the policy itself is bad