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: 11
21
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

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

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

ANY wedding cake - to a different bakery or make it themselves. If the Catholic baker knows it's for a gay wedding, then they are obliged under their religion not to bake it.

**like I said, most Catholics I know don't consider homosexuality to be a sin. I'm stating what's on the books ..




posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Not giving a business a government contract or grant money that originates from taxes is not using force either and yet the Louisiana law specifically protects would-be discriminatory business owners from just that:

"Deny or exclude such person from receiving any state grant, contract, cooperative agreement, loan, professional license, certification, accreditation, employment, or other similar position or status."



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.


So, you are essentially against (some) voluntary non-violent actions.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
It's the simple act of selling a PLAIN wedding cake to a gay couple or selling the same cake to a fornicating couple.

Hypocrisy thy name is religion.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan
If they were baking it for free I would agree.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: greencmp

Not giving a business a government contract or grant money that originates from taxes is not using force either and yet the Louisiana law specifically protects would-be discriminatory business owners from just that:

"Deny or exclude such person from receiving any state grant, contract, cooperative agreement, loan, professional license, certification, accreditation, employment, or other similar position or status."


I should say that I am against this and (nearly) all laws that do not specifically address the use of violence.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

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.


Except that is a lie. No one is telling them that they have to approve of the gay lifestyle and heck they are 100% allowed to say a gay marriage isn't a real marriage in the eyes of god. No one is stopping them there at all. Secular laws are just trying to make sure these religious people treat LGBT's like anyone else in their day to day goings on.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: kaylaluv
Talk to the supreme court.
Hobby Lobby ruling. Chick Fil A. Etc.
I don't make the rules. I'm just discussing them.




Then let's be clear on what the rules really are. The Hobby Lobby ruling was NOT about being allowed to discriminate, i.e., refusing to provide the same thing to one group that you provide to everyone else. They didn't want to pay for birth control for ANYONE. That doesn't qualify as discrimination. Allowing a business to refuse the same goods or services to one group that they provide to everyone else IS discrimination. Two different situations, so you can't really use Hobby Lobby to justify Jindal's exec order.

I could be wrong, but I believe that the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that personal religious beliefs can't be used to discriminate.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

by your reply I am assuming that you think that protection of the religous beliefs would extend out to even demanding that all the female employees of the business provide a note from their husbands stating that they approve of their employments and then the dismissals of those who don't provide such notes. since hey the businesses have the right to run their businesses as they see fit right??

even if the husband is a drunkard who hasn't worked in a year and was just too danged drunk to sign the note and all the women was doing was trying to run her household as she saw fit!!!

funny thing is thought, the constitutional protection was originally extended to PEOPLE not corporations and businesses.... and it seems to me that a mother just might have some big moral problems sitting at home playing happy homemaker while her kids starve because all the businesses are proclaiming religion to avoid hiring women except for those low paid positions that are "women's work"!



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
It's sad that the largest most passionate discussions on this site are dedicated to some of the most superfluous topics.
edit on 20-5-2015 by corvuscorrax because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

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.


My point that I brought this up about wasn't about adding new laws. My point was about rescinding unconstitutional laws that favor Christianity over other religions (which you still haven't given me a real answer to how you feel about getting those laws off the books). Another note: This topic is about adding an unconstitutional EO as a runaround to a constitutional legislative vote that voted down an unconstitutional law meant to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling (also unconstitutional). The mere fact that you even SAID the above is literally dripping in irony.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Bobby Jindal is pretty crazy.

Another deluded one who thinks the American people are so stupid (and they are but not that stupid) that they would vote him in as president.


Like Chris Christie in NJ he is presiding over an economic disaster in Louisiana, but still thinks the he could be a viable candidate.


This issue he takes the most extreme right wing position to curry favor to the ignorant bigots and religious fanatics in the GOP

Those are his kind of people

edit on 20-5-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv
It's rather ironic the Hobby Lobbys 401k is invested in the technologies they claim they were so against.
It's all B.S.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: corvuscorrax
It's sad that to largest most passionate discussions on this site are dedicated to some of the most superfluous topics.


Sigh...

Ain't that the truth.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: corvuscorrax
It's sad that to largest most passionate discussions on this site are dedicated to some of the most superfluous topics.


Superfluous topics like liberty and equality?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
I could be wrong, but I believe that the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that personal religious beliefs can't be used to discriminate.


Can Religious Freedom Be Used to Discriminate?


American history has shown "religious freedom" was used to legitimize slavery and later constituted the bedrock of discriminatory Jim Crow laws in southern states. In 1964, the owner of a BBQ restaurant in South Carolina based his refusal to serve African Americans on the first amendment and his freedom to practice his religious beliefs. In lower court deliberations, a judge cited a previously rejected "religious freedom" defense which claimed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was invalid because it "contravenes the will of God," and constitutes an interference with the "free exercise of the Defendant's religion." The Supreme Court agreed with previous court rulings and unanimously ruled 8-0 to uphold the Civil Rights Act of 1964.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

You are exactly right. He's courting the religious right in preparation for his presidential run, which is a complete joke. If anyone thinks Jindal is doing this for religious reasons and not political reasons, they're fooling themselves. But it wouldn't be the first time.

www.nydailynews.com...


But the Republican governor, who is courting Christian conservatives for a likely presidential bid, quickly fought back against the defeat, seeking to enact the bill’s provisions without legislative support.
...
Stephen Perry, a vocal critic of the bill who heads up the New Orleans Convention and Visitors Bureau, dismissed Jindal’s order as “largely a political statement” that “will have very little practical impact.”
...
“No Executive Order of a governor may create substantive law, even in an emergency situation,” he said in a statement.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

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.


My point that I brought this up about wasn't about adding new laws. My point was about rescinding unconstitutional laws that favor Christianity over other religions (which you still haven't given me a real answer to how you feel about getting those laws off the books). Another note: This topic is about adding an unconstitutional EO as a runaround to a constitutional legislative vote that voted down an unconstitutional law meant to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling (also unconstitutional). The mere fact that you even SAID the above is literally dripping in irony.


Yes, if I haven't made it clear, I advocate the removal of most (only saying most because there probably are some we should keep though they escape me at the moment) laws including the entirety of the ones you also favor repealing.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: corvuscorrax
It's sad that to largest most passionate discussions on this site are dedicated to some of the most superfluous topics.


Superfluous topics like liberty and equality?




I can't wait for another 20 or so years to pass by and this will no longer be an issue.

We will look back and realize that this was just like the store owners that hung signs in their business' windows that "no blacks" were allowed.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well there ya go.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join