It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Indiana's RFRA Law is Different

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: windword
I guess then, in that case, Christians are the ones who need to leave houses, cities, states and countries that aren't open to their preaching of "admonition, repenting and eschewing their sin", instead of forcing laws that legalize special rights to discriminate.



Timothy 5-8:
biblehub.com...

Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.


Nope... protecting your home and standing your religious ground is part of the Faith, friend.


Uh, that's not what Jesus said. Jesus had people abandoning and "hating" their families right and left. But we could argue contradictory Bible scripture all day long. That's not what this is about. It's about legalizing religious bigotry.




posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




Are you willing to make the argument that a cake or flower shop constitutes interstate commerce?


How is a bakery or a florist any different than a lunch counter?



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: burdman30ott6




Are you willing to make the argument that a cake or flower shop constitutes interstate commerce?


How is a bakery or a florist any different than a lunch counter?



For starters, the SCOTUS already has set precedent that states a lunch counter falls under interstate commerce. You'd need a jury to decide if a cake or flower shop did the same and, frankly, they'd have to demonstrate a measure of actual across-state-lines sales... in at least some of these cases, such as the Albuquerque one from a couple of years ago, I would be highly speculative of whether there is any evidence that the business ever crossed state lines to provide service.

Also, the vast majority of successful cases heard following the CRA involved previously segregated businesses, not blunt refusals to serve the protected class. That is the legal grounds to make the private establishment argument (which is allowable under the Act) and claim your business is not a public business, but rather a private establishment that conducts business only with "invited" clients. We're not dealing with a situation in which the flower shop or cake shop built a separate foyer to serve certain individuals off the alleyway as was the case with segregated businesses pre-1964.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




For starters, the SCOTUS already has set precedent that states a lunch counter falls under interstate commerce.


Then I guess the laws that convicted the florist and the baker were state civil right laws.

I'm shocked and disappointed by the number of people that are willing to throw out all the progress that we've made in the civil rights arena because of homophobia!



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

Serving a gay person has f-all to do with your religion. There is NOTHING in the Bible about refusing to serve LGBT people, or black people, or Jews, or Muslims. You are manufacturing "beliefs" to allow you to be a bigot.


You're right, it isn't against our religion to serve anyone. But it is against our religion to participate in the sins of others. This isn't about you and your sin, it is about me and my sin. Personally I think it's your team that are the real bigots in this situation. You all just hate Christians.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Rocker2013

Serving a gay person has f-all to do with your religion. There is NOTHING in the Bible about refusing to serve LGBT people, or black people, or Jews, or Muslims. You are manufacturing "beliefs" to allow you to be a bigot.


You're right, it isn't against our religion to serve anyone. But it is against our religion to participate in the sins of others. This isn't about you and your sin, it is about me and my sin. Personally I think it's your team that are the real bigots in this situation. You all just hate Christians.


Then how do you do business with anyone at all? "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory ..."

Unless ... you're picking and choosing which sinners to serve?

Hmmm.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Ironhawke

The similar measure in Georgia was just defeated ... seems that no one wants to stick their political pole in this particular bee's nest ... LOL.

I enjoyed your snark ... cheers!



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Rocker2013

Serving a gay person has f-all to do with your religion. There is NOTHING in the Bible about refusing to serve LGBT people, or black people, or Jews, or Muslims. You are manufacturing "beliefs" to allow you to be a bigot.


You're right, it isn't against our religion to serve anyone. But it is against our religion to participate in the sins of others. This isn't about you and your sin, it is about me and my sin. Personally I think it's your team that are the real bigots in this situation. You all just hate Christians.


I hate people who want to inflict their religious notions onto others, and I hate the utter hypocricy of so-called "libertarians" preaching about the Constitution and their "rights" while using those beliefs to attack the liberties and rights of others.

Here's the deal, it's real simple...

If you are a Christian and a gay couple want to buy from you, take the money, serve them just as you would anyone else. It's not your marriage, it's not your relationship, it's not your bedroom or your home. In addition, to refuse is exposing your own bigotries and intolerance, when accepting would cause you no harm whatever. Do you really think you're gaining any followers by being so ignorant and disrespectful to others? All you're doing is reducing your business (reducing your income) insulting people, offending a group of people who have every right to the same liberties and rights as you, and reducing your religion to one of pathetic b*tchiness.

Part of me actually hopes this continues, and that more and more businesses refuse to serve LGBT people publicly (and even if they don't want it to be public, it quickly will be), because this is going to continue to do MASSIVE damage to not only the Christian faith, but to the Republican party too.

I keep saying it, but this should be seen as a cloud with a silver lining. All this is doing is exposing the ignorance of the right-wing, and reducing their religious following and political power. They are repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot on this, over and over again, all the decent people of the USA need to do is continue to be vocal about it, exposing the ignorance and intolerance where it comes up, and let these groups destroy themselves from the inside out.

Like it or not, everyone with a youth following in media is against you and your ignorance, and they each have the power to influence the attitudes of millions of young people. You don't know it yet, but you guys have delivered a fatal blow to your future in society and politics.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

Oh, I'm absolutely with you if I read you right. I want the Republicans and their Religious Right cronies to go full-scale crazy.

I want them to make it clear, to everyone, just what their religion and politics are really all about: selfishness, price and a hatred of real freedom.

I want them to show America very clearly that they want to make this country a Theocracy with their ilk in charge.

And then, either America will live out her traditions and deny this insane dream, or she will give into it and I will move to better pastures.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

You're right, it isn't against our religion to serve anyone. But it is against our religion to participate in the sins of others. This isn't about you and your sin, it is about me and my sin. Personally I think it's your team that are the real bigots in this situation. You all just hate Christians.



The main thing is about not judging... Do not judge or you will be judged.
Any and all judging should be saved for God - you or anyone else have no right to judge or refuse service to ANYONE based on their lifestyle choices or the way they are.
edit on 1/4/15 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: blupblup

It's just amazing to me that Christians believe that they need to morally sanction the lifestyle of some their customers, while turning a blind eye to others.

A Christian waitress, cohabiting with her boyfriend, is sinning by working a gay wedding celebration! LOL How about her serving a triple cheeseburger with fries and a shake to an overweight person? Isn't she aiding and abetting in the immoral sin of gluttony?

What about Christian bankers who "store up earthly wealth" by charging interest to other Christians?

The list of utter Christian hypocrisy goes on and on and on...........



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: blupblup



The main thing is about not judging... Do not judge or you will be judged.


I think that this simple statement is all that needs to be said within this argument.

Respect each other.

I don't ask anyone to change their viewpoints, I just ask that they respect mine and don't try to change them. As people we could find the good and bad in every group, no matter how we decided to slice the pie. It seems today that everyone wants "permission" to be who they are. Just be who you are.


edit on 4/2/1515 by Martin75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Meh, some discrimination is acceptable. For example, many establishments refuse to serve people with concealed carry licenses.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Really? How would, say a Denny's waitress" know whether or not someone has been issued a "concealed carry license"? If the weapon was "concealed" how would anyone know to turn them away?



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Really? How would, say a Denny's waitress" know whether or not someone has been issued a "concealed carry license"? If the weapon was "concealed" how would anyone know to turn them away?



But if they have a sign to that effect, then that would be policy, knowing it or not, yes? Would that not be discriminatory? Why are some forms if discrimination acceptable and others are not? IS that not a hypocritical stance?
edit on 2-4-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
This is a tricky one although rationally it sounds reasonable that a business should be able to serve anybody or not as they see fit.

However if you open a PUBLIC business and not a PRIVATE buyers club then you are agreeing to serve the public as a whole, if you just want to serve 'group x' then you open a private business.

The best example being the last fuel station in a large desert area - if they refuse to sell you fuel then you are effectively stuck there and would likely die within a few days from lack of water as presumably if they won't sell you fuel they won't sell you water either.

So to those who say a business should have the choice are you agreeing that the above scenario is ok?
edit on 2-4-2015 by johnb because: meh



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Really? How would, say a Denny's waitress" know whether or not someone has been issued a "concealed carry license"? If the weapon was "concealed" how would anyone know to turn them away?



But if they have a sign to that effect, then that would be policy, knowing it or not, yes? Would that not be discriminatory? Why are some forms if discrimination acceptable and others are not? IS that not a hypocritical stance?


No. It's not hypocritical nor is it discriminatory. Public safety is the reason! Free speech is limited for the same reason, for example.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people!

Amiright?



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Really? How would, say a Denny's waitress" know whether or not someone has been issued a "concealed carry license"? If the weapon was "concealed" how would anyone know to turn them away?



But if they have a sign to that effect, then that would be policy, knowing it or not, yes? Would that not be discriminatory? Why are some forms if discrimination acceptable and others are not? IS that not a hypocritical stance?


No. It's not hypocritical nor is it discriminatory. Public safety is the reason! Free speech is limited for the same reason, for example.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people!

Amiright?





How is a person licensed by the state to carry a gun carrying one in accordance with the law a threat to public safety?

So what you are saying is that discrimination is okay if you agree with it?



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

because there's a fairly big difference between saying 'I don't want guns" in my establishment ( a thing) and "I don't want gays/Muslims/whatever group in my establishment" ( people). It's the same as banning cell phones, which I've seen many stores do. Should we be all angry about stores that ban cellphones? Or stores that refuse entry to non-service animals? How about those convenience stores that ban hats? What about my right to wear a hat? Guns =/= people.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




How is a person licensed by the state to carry a gun carrying one in accordance with the law a threat to public safety?


Mom killed in Wal-Mart accidental shooting kept gun in special pocket

Concealed weapons holder accidentally shoots self, driver in Cleveland

Woman accidentally kills self adjusting bra holster


edit on 2-4-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join