It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:13 PM
a reply to: arpgme


Public Accommodation!

I'm a customer.

I have my rights!

If they didn't want to decorate cakes, then they shouldn't have gone into business.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:17 PM
a reply to: beezzer

They just want to remove the separation of church and state and also remove all religious freedom in this country... next they will be trying to legislate what can be preached from the pulpit and what we should believe...

that is exactly what this "outrage" is about.. that a private religious institution should self govern according to their constitutional rights and not be governed according to secular public laws and secular public rules...

edit on 25-4-2015 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:17 PM
a reply to: OpinionatedB

I totally agree. I'm not trying to support an "Atheist" world view, whatever that may be. A public classroom that teaches Science should be based in Science, period. If one day Science discovers evidence to support some kind of God or Divine Creator then by all means it should be included. However, until such time as Science discovers God, God should be kept out of Science classrooms. Science shouldn't carry a bias either way. It should be about what evidence has been found to support it's position and that's it. If that evidence points toward a Divine Being, so be it. If not, then that's fine too.

As for your child and that teacher. That teacher sounds like a dick and a bad teacher. When he asks a question he should expect all sorts of answers and he shouldn't make anyone feel bad for how they answer even if he doesn't agree. There is no need to attack someone else for what they think. All you need to do is show the evidence for your position and why it's the correct one. That is what that teacher should have done. If he had evidence to prove his position then that is what he should have relied on. Disproving another persons theory doesn't automatically prove yours true and that sounds like what he was attempting to do.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:18 PM
a reply to: Onslaught2996

I authored this op on November 2014 after the GOP took power of the senate and congress

Here is what I predicted in the op what they would try to do or do:

Number 9 underneath I predicted the gutting of woman and gay rights has been fulfilled: “Massive attack on woman rights and gay rights”

"The gutting of the safety net

The gutting of the right to choose

The gutting of Obamacare

The further ruination of the environment, the economy, human rights, civil rights, minority rights

A stronger supporting of Israel

Laws that will favor Banksters and Koch type billionaires
The complete death of unionism

the death of the minimum wage

The impeachment of Obama

Massive attack on woman rights and gay rights

The civil rights movement and affirmative action will be set back years"

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:22 PM
a reply to: mOjOm

I agree with all you said..

As for the teacher.. I also agree... she ended that school year learning literally no science.. he was even holding class and teaching astrology (NOT astronomy... but astrology..!) his thing was simply to preach about anything that religion was usually opposed to and push his own beliefs down the kids' throats..

it was crazy! I would have much preferred she learn useful stuff!

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:25 PM
a reply to: beezzer

Actually, you don't have the right to get bakeries to break discrimination laws, so no, asking for an anti-gay or kkk cake is still not the same as a gay couple wanting a cake for a wedding.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:26 PM
a reply to: Willtell

Those are pretty accurate predictions. You're only off on a couple of them and it's not like they aren't working toward getting those done too.

Kinda makes you wonder what would be passed already if Obama wasn't still in there to veto some of these things that are being proposed.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:30 PM

originally posted by: kaylaluv
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.

You also missed what I said about wedding cakes NOT being generic.

Also very sad.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:35 PM

originally posted by: murphy22
I see nothing wrong with this. Don't be so "biggoted".
..there is right and kind of sort of, right and wrong...

You scare me. A woman using a condom in her personal life should lose her job? And nothing of men? How is that anyone's business? You really want something in place to control people's bed rooms? I bet you are pure of spirit too, right?

If I look through your post history, am I going to find any anti-big government posts?

Having no problem with it, is asking for daddy to take care of you.
edit on 04pm02pm302015-04-25T14:36:06-05:0002America/Chicago by mahatche because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:35 PM
a reply to: mOjOm

yet this isn't about "removing" anyone's right except for the right of a private religious institution to be exempt from the normal public secular laws...

that is their right under the constitution, the law had to be written back in 1977 just to make a private religious institutions rights clear.. and all that is being said is that the law, which does nothing more than to protect separation of church and state and religious freedom laws, cannot be removed..

the only one in danger of loosing their rights in this that the OP is about, is private religious institutions...

I see no war on women or LGBT people's... I see a war against the constitutions standpoint on religious freedom and separation of church and state...

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:48 PM
Do you people realize what will happen (to the supreme court for example) if the GOP takes the presidency and remains in charge of the congress.

This will(Tell) likely happen and bad apocalyptic stuff will again occur as it did during the last time the GOP had the presidency and congress…remember we got



THE 2007-8 depression

I assure you folks this time it may


Keep in mind...They don’t call me WillTell For nothing!
Something's wrong with the Republican logo. The stars are upside down. Five-sided stars that point upwards—like those on the Democratic donkey and the American flag—traditionally symbolize the forces of good. An overturned pentagram, however, represents the goat's head of Satan and the forces of evil—and there are three on the Republicans' elephant. The GOP's stars weren't always upside down; some say the change occurred around 2000. When I called up the RNC to ask about the logo's history, staffers invariably said, "we'll have to get back to you on that" and never did. "Huh, that's interesting," said one, who clearly hadn't noticed Satan hiding in plain view
edit on 25-4-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:51 PM
a reply to: OpinionatedB

This is why I always stress the importance of that separation. It's that separation which keeps all sides protected. What worries me is that there are so many on the Religious Right that want to remove that barrier without understanding that it's for their benefit also in keeping it there. They seem to think that Christian Values should Govern our society and want to remove the separation that is stopping them from implementing those values. But what they don't seem to understand is that only seems like a good idea because those values happen to be similar to their own. But once you open that door there is nothing stopping other Values of other Religions from doing the same should those Religions take a majority.

I doubt that the Christian majority would feel the same about removing the separation if Islam or Scientology was the majority instead of them and wanted to install their values in to law. But that is exactly what they need to consider when attempting to open that door. Because once you open that door up you may not like what comes walking through it and closing it again can be very difficult.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:03 PM
a reply to: mOjOm

It's NOT the religious right trying to remove it right now through legislation... the left is literally trying to pass legislation to remove it... not the right...(It was congress that stopped the removal of separation of church and state in the District of Columbia)

I will agree that there are some idiots out there on both sides... but new legislation concerning removal of religious freedoms and separations are coming up from the LGBT communities and the extremist feminist camps..

At the very least that is the front and the face they are using to do it - and that front is decidedly left..

edit on 25-4-2015 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:06 PM
Gotta wonder is there such a thing as a gay muslim , with all the stoning and throwing of roofs and such

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:11 PM
a reply to: poncho1982

Oh really? Are there then special wedding cakes for fat couples and special wedding cakes for ugly couples and special wedding cakes for people who don't plan to have children and special wedding cakes for people who have red hair or are left-handed? Wonder what special ingredients are in all these special wedding cakes that makes them so special?

I'm not the one who's sad here.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:14 PM

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Deaf Alien

you do realize bills have to actually be passed first, right?

Nevermind. I get it. "THE CHRISTIANS ARE COMING THE CHRISTIANS ARE COMING!" lmao... #ing weak.

No, you don't get it. It's not "The Christians are coming", it's bought and paid for politicians that bend to religious extremists. They waste our tax dollars even writing this crap and trying to pass it to begin with.
edit on 25-4-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:18 PM
a reply to: OpinionatedB
The problem with Republican's and the(ier) religious Zealots are they don't understand the differences between RIGHTS and VALUES.
Historically, in democratic countries around the world, 'rights' are established in founding charters and supplementary legislation because of 'due deliberation' regarding the long term betterment of an inclusive, cohesive society.

Values tend to be reflected in individuals or smaller sub-groups within a society.

Rights are for all, forever. Values are for individuals for as long as they choose - before changing them.

'Rights' are intentionally established to protect the entirety from an individual's or sub-group's myopic 'values'.

An emphasis on rights ensures long term security of all as a common society.
An emphasis on values encourages division and short term supremacy of a few over the majority over the long term.

Thus, the motivation for the right, or one judge, to arrogantly posture for rights - their goal is to reign supreme over the majority.

Once we lose rights, values become insignificant, as 'the ruler's' values define us all.

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.”
― Mark Twain

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:24 PM
a reply to: brice

All congress did is to say that laws which already exist, and have existed to protect separation of church and state as well as the religious freedoms of private religious institutions cannot be removed...

private religious institutions should have no less consideration than say, Harvard for instance..

it doesn't matter how much money I have, if I am dumb as a box of rocks Harvard will discriminate against me, and not allow me to attend their private institution..

why remove the religious freedoms from private religious institutions? Seriously? We are talking only about private religious institutions here... not public.. why say that a private religious institution must be dictated to by the government?

Separation of church and state protects that from happening... yet you all want to see that separation removed!

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:38 PM

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
but new legislation concerning removal of religious freedoms and separations are coming up from the LGBT communities and the extremist feminist camps..

Can you point me to some examples of such legislation being proposed by those groups??? Or any other bills that have been presented that would remove the Separation of Church and State by other groups on the left???

Because anyone who is suggesting taking that away is very short sighted in their thinking. You cannot remove that wall without it allowing a crossover, in both directions, which helps nobody. Once gone, Government will try to dominate Religion while at the same time Religion will try to dominate Government. Neither of which will work out well for us. It seems that both sides think they can remove that separation and replace it with a "one-way valve" of some kind but that isn't how it will work. Nor should it. They have to be separate at all times to prevent one influencing the other.

In simple terms, "They need to keep their Chocolate out of the others Peanut Butter and the Peanut Butter out of the others Chocolate."

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:50 PM
a reply to: mOjOm

That is the entirety of what this thread is about! Let me get the links again and I will show you!

okay... LGBT is mad because of what congress said/did here... and this is what congress did:

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


what that means, is there was something that the District of Columbia wanted removed (repealed) from the law and congress is against it, said no it cannot be I found the law that D.O.C. wanted to remove (repeal):

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


So I had to look up the law, since number don't help.. lol.. so I found the actual law and its wording is this:


It is an unlawful discriminatory practice, subject to the exemptions in § 2-1401.03(b), for an educational institution:

(1) To deny, restrict, or to abridge or condition the use of, or access to, any of its facilities, services, programs, or benefits of any program or activity to any person otherwise qualified, wholly or partially, for a discriminatory reason, based upon the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, political affiliation, source of income, or disability of any individual; or

(2) To make or use a written or oral inquiry, or form of application for admission, that elicits or attempts to elicit information, or to make or keep a record, concerning the race, color, religion, or national origin of an applicant for admission, except as permitted by regulations of the Office.

(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of the laws of the District of Columbia, it shall not be an unlawful discriminatory practice in the District of Columbia for any educational institution that is affiliated with a religious organization or closely associated with the tenets of a religious organization to deny, restrict, abridge, or condition --

(A) the use of any fund, service, facility, or benefit; or

(B) the granting of any endorsement, approval, or recognition,

to any person or persons that are organized for, or engaged in, promoting, encouraging, or condoning any homosexual act, lifestyle, orientation, or belief.

It is section 3 of the above that the District of Columbia voted to repeal - which congress was against (as you can see in the wording of the first two links I quoted)

Section three specifically refers to private religious institutions... not public institutions... but specifically religious institutions...

anyone who is mad about what congress did, from what I am reading.. is literally mad because they WANT religious institutions to have their policy dictated to them by the government..

in my opinion, this opens the door wide wide open.. down a road we want to keep closed... government needs to stay out of religious institutions, let them dictate their own policy... but don't decide that the government can dictate policy to private religious institutions..
edit on 25-4-2015 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in