Republican Congress Strips Women and Gays of Rights Under Guise of ‘Religious Freedom’

wait if we don't let corporations control
our reproductive and religious rights we
are on a slippery slope to communism?
Am I missing something ?.. cuz that is Fascist

a reply to: Puppylove

So you would support me when;

I can go into a Christian owned bakery and demand they make a cake saying, "Hail Satan".

I can go into a LGBT owned bakery and demand they make a cake saying, "Gays go to hell".

I can go into a black owned bakery and demand they make a cake saying, "Hail KKK".

I can go into a Muslim owned bakery and demand they make a cake with a picture of their prophet on it.


???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

a reply to: beezzer

All those things are hate speech, so actually no you cannot. Well you can, but they are legally, thanks to the same anti-discrimination laws, able to refuse such service.

Well ok the muslim one is not hate speach, but unlike the gay wedding thing, drawing the prophet is truly against their religion personally. Whereas engaging in homosexuality oneself or getting married to a same sex partner yourself would be you personally engaging in homosexuality. Which is where the difference is. Making a wedding cake for a gay couple, is not you personally engaging in homosexuality, it's you baking a cake for someone else who is. They are sinning, not you, unless engaging in commerce is now a sin, in which case owning a business is a bad idea.

No one is demanding a Christian be gay. Which is the only thing supposedly against their religion here, along with a billion other things they conveniently ignore and have no problem with, signalling out gays as the hypocrites they are, but whatever.

a reply to: Puppylove

Your post spoke volumes.

Have a nice day.

edit to add;

Hail Satan is hate speech? Guess you discriminate against Satanists.

Gays go to hell? that's an opinion, not hate speech. Ask Westboro.

Hail KKK is hate speech? try telling that to the ACLU who protects their 1st Amendment rights.

And Muslim prophet images? So you "respect" Islam. lolz.


Funny post.

a reply to: beezzer

Beezzer, Beezzer, Beezzer - why are you still using this argument? Equal treatment under the laws means that you must sell the same product to one group that you sell to everyone else. Putting a special decoration on a cake does not qualify as the same product, unless you are willing to sell a "Hail Satan" cake to everyone else, but not to a specific group. But if a gay person asks for a plain white wedding cake that you would sell to everyone else, and you refuse - that's discrimination.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Who would support and back the customer who wanted that on their cake?

Would you?

Any example?

Would you?

Or would you discriminate?

originally posted by: beezzer


It's divisive politics that'll only breed more divisiveness.

More Us vs Them.

And the more laws that negate respect and polite civil discourse, the more "need" for a controlling, dictatorial government.

You already can see the division take form and hold, remember this happen in ATS during national elections, I see it going on and off since I been here.

a reply to: beezzer

No, just like I wouldn't support the customer who demanded that a baker decorate a penis on a cake. I didn't support the guy who pretended to be gay and tried to get bakers to put pro-gay decorations on a cake either. Nor did I support the guy who tried to get the Christian baker to put anti-gay decorations on a cake either. I DO support the customer who asks for the exact same cake with the same decorations that the baker would sell to everyone else.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I'm the CUSTOMER!

I walk into a business and they CANNOT refuse service!!!!!

I want a cake with whatever decorations I WANT! I'm paying for a service.

It's "Public Accommodation"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They decorate the damned cake, they decorate for everyone else.

They put on their cakes whatever OTHER people want!

I don't give a god-damn about WHAT THEY THINK OR BELIEVE!

It's a service they are providing, and by god!, I am paying for their service!

It's MY CAKE! I want it decorated how I WANT!

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: beezzer

No, just like I wouldn't support the customer who demanded that a baker decorate a penis on a cake. I didn't support the guy who pretended to be gay and tried to get bakers to put pro-gay decorations on a cake either. Nor did I support the guy who tried to get the Christian baker to put anti-gay decorations on a cake either. I DO support the customer who asks for the exact same cake with the same decorations that the baker would sell to everyone else.

A baker, particularly one of wedding cakes, is an artist. The cake is an expression of themselves and their talent. And it is not "the same cake" sold to everyone else. Wedding cakes are very personal, and people have very specific wants and needs out of their cake.

It's not like picking out a DQ ice cream cake from the freezer.

My point is this, because they are artists, and the cake is an extension of them and their talent, they should not be forced to make that cake for anything that goes against their beliefs.

When will you people finally get it? It's not the person, it's the EVENT that they baker had a problem with. If that same gay person came in off the street and bought a bag of donuts, or a birthday cake from the baker, they would have happily sold it to them. Thus proving my point. It is NOT discrimination when it is about an event, it's discrimination only if that baker had refused to serve gays at all, as a rule.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: xuenchen
Has anyone actually found the bill numbers or the actual legislation?

The cherry-picked parts might be interesting to read.

I think they are talking about these.

Bill for termination of employees

Bill about Religious Schools turning away LGBT students

From what I have read about the second one.. they didn't want a small portion of the existing law to be REMOVED from law... nothing to do with not wanting LGBT kids going to school... nothing about being backwards...

sounds like way to much hype over wanting to keep a very small portion of an existing law...

The Congress disapproves of the action of the District of Columbia Council described as follows: Section 3(a) of 4 the Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014 (D.C. Act 20– 5 605), signed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia on 6January 25, 2015

and section 3a is:

3. The Human Rights Act of 1977, effective December 13, 1977 (D.C. Law 2-38; D.C. Official Code§ 2-1401.01 et seq.), is amended as follows: (a) Section 241(3) (D.C. Official Code§ 2-1402.41(3)), is repealed

lims.dccouncil.us...


so... they didn't want section 241(3) of DC official Code to be repealed...

a reply to: poncho1982

But the event only matters because they are gay. So being gay has everything to do with it.

A plain white wedding cake is made out of the exact same ingredients - no matter whether it is for a straight person or a gay person. If you operate a business selling plain white wedding cakes to the general public, then you sell them to the public. If you want to pick and choose which group you'll sell to, then you should open a private cake club with membership applications. That way you can make sure you don't sell cakes to people who are planning open marriages or to people who have previously been divorced or to people who plan on having sex without having children (or whatever other type of marriage you think is sinful).

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: xuenchen
Here's an interesting point of view....

another 1st Amendment battle?

Just before the Christmas break, the D.C. City Council passed a law that could force pro-life organizations to pay for abortion coverage. But that wasn’t the only piece of bad legislation, violating religious liberty which came out of the D.C. Council in December.

A new bill might force Christian schools to recognize an LGBT student group or host a “gay pride” day on campus.

Here’s how: In a unanimous vote on Dec. 2, the D.C. Council approved legislation that revokes religious liberty protections that Congress passed for the District back in 1989. The Orwellian titled bill—“The Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014”—eliminates an important protection for a key human right: religious liberty.

Government Shouldn’t Force Religious Schools to Violate Religious Beliefs

Religious liberty never was meant to mean that you have the "liberty" to discriminate against others. It simply means and meant the right to practice your religion on a PERSONAL level. The moment you project it on to others it is not "liberty" but actually oppression and limiting someone else's liberty.

This is something that conservatives need to get.

Can you quote the offensive language in the bill(s) they are talking about?

Maybe the problem is in the D.C. Council laws?

a reply to: xuenchen

from what I am seeing here... the council of the district of columbia was willing to REMOVE this law:

link

and congress said hell no..

I see no difficulty with what congress said and did... can anyone explain to me why this somehow means that congress and republicans are backwards and they somehow hate lgbt?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: poncho1982

But the event only matters because they are gay. So being gay has everything to do with it.

A plain white wedding cake is made out of the exact same ingredients - no matter whether it is for a straight person or a gay person. If you operate a business selling plain white wedding cakes to the general public, then you sell them to the public. If you want to pick and choose which group you'll sell to, then you should open a private cake club with membership applications. That way you can make sure you don't sell cakes to people who are planning open marriages or to people who have previously been divorced or to people who plan on having sex without having children (or whatever other type of marriage you think is sinful).

Exactly! The event, is a gay wedding. It does indeed have to do with them being gay, but again, they are NOT discriminating against THEM, just their EVENT.

And, you obviously missed my entire point about artistry. Sad.

a reply to: poncho1982

We are talking in this law, only concerning private religious schools... private is key here.. religious is also key... private religious schools want be to able to admit whomsoever they please (or not) without government interference because they are private religious institutions..

separation of church and state is a constitutional right... the state cannot force a religious institution to do anything that is AGAINST whatever it is they believe in...

This law has been on the books in the district of columbia since 1977 when it needed to be said that a private religious institution was exempt due to their constitutional rights..

yet LGBT say they do not want to force religious institutions to do anything.. my ass - being pissed off that a private religious institution wants to keep their rights under the constitution is BS and everyone knows it..

originally posted by: OpinionatedB

We are talking in this law, only concerning private religious schools... private is key here.. religious is also key... private religious schools want be to able to admit whomsoever they please (or not) without government interference because they are private religious institutions..

separation of church and state is a constitutional right... the state cannot force a religious institution to do anything that is AGAINST whatever it is they believe in...

A School which is Primarily a Religious School should be allowed to admit or not admit whoever they choose without the state interfering. If they choose to admit only a certain race, sex, or whatever they choose on religious grounds, as a private religious institution, that should be allowed.

You are correct that this is about separation of church and state and they have that right.

The same goes public schools and public institutions that their rights as well. Which means keep them separate. No more BS about putting bibles back in classrooms or intelligent design or teaching about religious ideals in public schools. No more 10 Commandments in Court rooms either.

Keep them separate!!!

a reply to: mOjOm

I do agree with you... but ALSO I do believe that the classroom is not an atheist's pulpit either! The classroom should be about science, (etc) and not about anyone's beliefs that are outside of science..

when my daughter was about 10 years old her school got a new science teacher... which was cool - his credentials were supposed to be good etc and everyone in this small small school was happy to get him..

(school each year had a graduating class of between 7 - 11 children.. that was how small it was - the school was pre-K through 12th grade)

so.. new teacher, first day of class.. he asked a question to very young children who had no exposure to much by way of science yet..

The question he asked to the class, in the first day, his first minute with all the children was "What controls the weather?"

Fine question, and it lets you know as a teacher where the children are concerning science (which at that age was no knowledge yet at all)

so my daughter was happy she knew the answer to the question and raised her hand.. as she was the only student with her hand up he called on her for the answer..

and she said "God does" ... lol.. as I said, no knowledge yet in science... anyway.. for her age it was appropriate - God is everything you don't know the answer to at that age..

anyway... he spent the rest of the class calling her God a mass murderer.. and berated her for her beliefs the rest of the school year... using the classroom full of 10 year olds as his pulpit to hate... in a public school..

needless to say.. he wasn't invited back the next year, because he didn't teach much to the kids outside of how to hate God...

I don't think the classroom of a public school needs to be anything outside of an institution of learning.. actual learning..

a reply to: beezzer

There's a difference between asking for a cake for marriage, and asking for a cake to promote hate groups.

A Christian asking a gay baker for a cake for their Christian marriage is ok.
A Christian asking a gay baker for a cake promoting gay discrimination is not.

A White person asking a Black baker for a wedding cake is ok. A White person asking a Black baker for a KKK cake is not.

Gay bakeries are already treating Christians fairly by baking their wedding cakes, where is the respect in return? What happened to the teaching of treating others as you would like to be treated?

a reply to: poncho1982

Artistry has nothing to do with refusal to sell a generic wedding cake for a gay wedding, and you know it. Every example I have seen of gay couples asking for wedding cakes from Christian bakers, have been very tasteful and traditional cake designs - the exact same work of artistry that they would be willing to do for anyone else. It ain't the artistry - it's simply whom the cake is for. That makes it discrimination.