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.

 

Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

page: 10
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan
I'm waiting to see if someone can come up with a way to allow religious people to be able to keep their constitutional right to practice their religion AND a way for same-sex couples not to be discriminated against.


Here's one. Religious people who have a license to sell to the public can practice their religion all they want in their private life. But in their business, they must follow secular law. It's really easy.

If I'm a business person, there are going to be people I disagree with, but I am obligated to sell them goods or services, whether I approve of them or not.




posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

The religious ALWAYS feel like they are being targeted, but that's because there are so many laws on the books that favor Christian beliefs over other religious beliefs and when people work to get them removed or changed, Christians pretend like they are being persecuted. I'm sure you as a Libertarian must also recognize these things are violations of separation of church and state as well. Right?
edit on 20-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
So, given that all of the benefits and punishments associated with "marriage" are reflected in civil unions (where they are legal which is the only issue of importance here), I can understand how religious people might feel as though they are being targeted.


But civil unions do NOT have all the benefits of marriage. Not even close.

How are religious people being targeted again?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Yet, they'll gladly make cakes for other sinners, like liars, fornicators, etc. and that's NOT encouraging sin?

If they made a cake saying 'happy fornication' or 'good luck liar' ... I'd say so.
Take it up with the church people who believe it.
I"m just reporting what their 'books' say.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Well when you have the extremist gay mafia dictating that we must bake them cakes and bow to their pedophile ways, you will get an equal and opposite reaction.

Boo Hoo for the gay mafia pedophiles..
edit on 20-5-2015 by truckdriver42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe


But that's just it....they are not public accommodations....they are private businesses.


That's incorrect. Public accommodations can be anything from a park or court to a movie theater or hotel. Have you ever stopped outside of a department store and checked for a notice that said you were allowed in before entering? Why not? Before you walk into the lobby of a hotel, do you call ahead to make sure you're allowed to do so? Why not?

Because within a free society, anything that is "open to the public" is open to the public regardless of things like a person's race, gender, religious faith or sexuality. Why? I'm fond of quoting Thomas Paine, particularly on this issue.

"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."

Businesses don't exist outside the context of society. Within a free and open society, everyone should have an equal expectation of the opportunity to benefit from society as much as they should have an equal expectation to be beholden to the rules of society. Think the implications of that through. If we aren't going to protect the rights of a person to benefit equally from society, should they be equally accountable also to its rules? If a business decides to be open to the public — except for gays — do we then exempt gays from the arson laws under which a person would be prosecuted for firebombing said establishment?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But freedom of religion means that you also have freedom FROM religion. You have no right to impose your religion onto me or anyone else, which is EXACTLY what these people are trying to do.

And according to the religious folks - the secular people are trying to impose THEIR beliefs onto the religious folks and force them not to be able to practice their religion.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Then you'd have to agree to the employment rules of the company ahead of time. Your lack of access to different jobs doesn't mean your situation trumps over the right of someone else to live their life according to their religious beliefs.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Yet, they'll gladly make cakes for other sinners, like liars, fornicators, etc. and that's NOT encouraging sin?

If they made a cake saying 'happy fornication' or 'good luck liar' ... I'd say so.
Take it up with the church people who believe it.
I"m just reporting what their 'books' say.


What if a gay couple wanted a plain white wedding cake that didn't have anything "gay marriage-related" on it?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

“We will be issuing an Executive Order shortly that will … prevent the state from discriminating against persons or entities with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

I see that as protecting religious freedoms for churches, so they won't be forced to provide same sex marriage. I'm not seeing the law protecting religious rights as a law allowing discrimination against gay people. Louisiana doesn't have legalized same sex marriage. Or is this for something else that I've missed???


** Disclosure - before anyone jumps down my throat - I'm in favor of marriage equality.


What these "Religious Freedom" laws are - - - is ways to get around any Federal mandate of legal marriage equality.

There trying to get state laws in place before the USSC makes a decision.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Religious people who have a license to sell to the public can practice their religion all they want in their private life. But in their business, they must follow secular law.

Nice thought but ... They are following secular law. Secular law says they can put their religion into practice and that includes how to run their business.

Tricky.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan
Would the words "happy gay wedding" be on a cake??



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: truckdriver42

And boo hoo to ignorant bigots.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

The religious ALWAYS feel like they are being targeted, but that's because there are so many laws on the books that favor Christian beliefs over other religious beliefs and when people work to get them removed or changed, Christians pretend like they are being persecuted. I'm sure you as a Libertarian must also recognize these things are violations of separation of church and state as well. Right?


As a libertarian, I do not have an opinion other than that force should not be exerted upon non-violent citizens by anyone including the state.

Failing to mow someone's lawn is not an act of violence.
edit on 20-5-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan
If they made a cake saying 'happy fornication' or 'good luck liar' ... I'd say so.


I would agree. But no one is asking businesses to make special decorations or wording that they don't already make. It's the simple act of selling a PLAIN wedding cake to a gay couple or selling the same cake to a fornicating couple. These businesses have NO problem encouraging people to cheat in their marriage or turn against God by becoming an atheist.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

No I am speaking about equality opportunity wise. You are delusional if you think that everyone in the country has 100% equal opportunities as everyone else.


So, you are saying that some minorities are incapable of contributing to society as significantly as some other groups?


That is a way of wording it, yes.


Is that not the definition of racism?


Yes. That's why I'm trying to work to make sure these people ARE capable of contributing to society as significantly as other groups. Hence why I'm for marriage equality and against the religious trying to hide behind their religion to use their businesses to discriminate.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

So what you are saying is that once it is law, we shouldn't work to remove or change it if it is unconstitutional?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: greencmp
So, given that all of the benefits and punishments associated with "marriage" are reflected in civil unions (where they are legal which is the only issue of importance here), I can understand how religious people might feel as though they are being targeted.


But civil unions do NOT have all the benefits of marriage. Not even close.

How are religious people being targeted again?


That is a valid argument where it is true and can be rectified. It does not make baking cakes for civil unions any more mandatory.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan



Sorry, it's a fast moving thread and I must have missed it. You'll have to expand on that because I"m not sure what you mean by the question. Thanks.


Let's say you run a cake business and will not make cakes for gay weddings, because of your beliefs. You can do so and are protected by law.

Let's also say that I too run a cake business but I will not make cakes for black people. because of my beliefs. While you can refuse to make cakes for gays, I cannot refuse to make cakes for black people because of anti-discrimination laws.

The law and the government are respecting your religious beliefs over mine and is violating the first amendment by doing so.

See what I mean?

If we allow discrimination based on religious belief, we have opened-up ourselves to all kinds of trouble. That's why we should not allow discrimination in the public sector based on religious belief.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

So what you are saying is that once it is law, we shouldn't work to remove or change it if it is unconstitutional?


Most laws are unconstitutional and most laws should be rescinded. We should certainly not add to the docket a plethora of new unconstitutional laws.




top topics



 
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join