Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
If a business wants to deny service to anyone, then they can put a sign in the glass in front. That way, everyone will know ahead of time and it would save people a lot of shame and embarrassment.

PERFECT! Let them wear it with pride.

Like I said - people have the opportunity to boycott if so desired.

originally posted by: greencmp
Cool, I'm glad that you are also against new laws and are for rescinding existing ones.

WTF are you talking about? I didn't say that at all. I would never make a blanket statement like that, about new laws or old ones. You're making things up.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

Their religion says that if they participate in or encourage it, then they are 'sinning'. For a cake baker or a florist to do business with a gay wedding is to encourage and participate in the homosexuality and to give approval. Therefore it's against their religion.

Secular laws are just trying to make sure these religious people treat LGBT's like anyone else in their day to day goings on.

I get that. But secular rule of law also protects the religious persons right to follow their religion.

a reply to: greencmp

Black barber shops are required to give the same service to anyone who enters their establishment and wants to enlist the business to cut their hair. If a bun isn't a hairstyle that they cut, then there is no reason to force them to cut it for people who want it. It's just a product that their business doesn't carry. So your analogy fails.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
PERFECT!

Let them wear it with pride.

But legally forcing religious business owners to put a sign in their glass would be infringing on their religious liberty, wouldn't it?

What about businesses who didn't want to serve blacks because of their religious beliefs? Or women? Should they be permitted?

NO! Because that would be against the law!

originally posted by: dawnstar
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.

Like I said, show me a person with half a brain who would be willing to work in such a business.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Well then the sign must be accurate. It must include the words "bigoted discrimination practised here".

a reply to: kaylaluv

I think "No Gays" would get that message across.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

A business owner isn't under contract with the state either.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: greencmp
Cool, I'm glad that you are also against new laws and are for rescinding existing ones.

WTF are you talking about? I didn't say that at all. I would never make a blanket statement like that, about new laws or old ones. You're making things up.

So then my original statement wasn't a misunderstanding. You do want new laws to force behavior that you find desirable even though no violence or coercion has been used.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Their religion says that if they participate in or encourage it, then they are 'sinning'. For a cake baker or a florist to do business with a gay wedding is to encourage and participate in the homosexuality and to give approval. Therefore it's against their religion.

No it isn't. I've very well versed in what the bible says on homosexuality. I'm also pretty well versed in how homosexuals were treated in the past (including by Christians, hint it wasn't NEARLY as discriminatory as it is today) and what the REAL history of marriage is. What you said is all brand new, made up dogma from the religious trying to feign persecution.

I get that. But secular rule of law also protects the religious persons right to follow their religion.

Not according to the Supreme Court when they upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or did you miss this link I posted on a previous page?

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.

a reply to: kaylaluv
I'm not a lawyer. All I know is that the secular rule of law protects a persons right to live their life under their religious beliefs. That includes the beliefs that they can't participate in, nor approve of in public, of homosexual activity. The Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby can be run with the religious beliefs of the family owners.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
But legally forcing religious business owners to put a sign in their glass would be infringing on their religious liberty, wouldn't it?

You are right. You are right.
I just liked the idea so much I couldn't help but give it a thumbs up.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Black barber shops are required to give the same service to anyone who enters their establishment and wants to enlist the business to cut their hair. If a bun isn't a hairstyle that they cut, then there is no reason to force them to cut it for people who want it. It's just a product that their business doesn't carry. So your analogy fails.

Why don't you send your wife down to one and let me know how that works out for you. Needless to say, I won't support your social engineering for that either.

a reply to: blupblup

He's gov. of Louisiana, and a prospective Presidential (god forbid) candidate.

To be a critic of Obama EO's, then use them himself also reveals him to be a first class hypocrite.

So, yes, he's a #.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: kaylaluv
All I know is that the secular rule of law protects a persons right to live their life under their religious beliefs.

No, it doesn't. Read Krazysh0t's post above.

a reply to: kaylaluv

You're assuming of course that your run of the mill bigot can read those big words...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
No it isn't. I've very well versed in what the bible says on homosexuality.

Yes it is. Catholic Catechism. I posted the link previously. I said that is the religious law for Catholics and that you all would have to ask the different protestant theologians their opinions on this matter.

or did you miss this link I posted on a previous page?

Fast moving thread ... and a break for lunch ... Yes I missed that. Lemme read up on it ...
Does that law say that religious people can't practice their religion freely?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Yep .. thanks ... got it. Fast moving thread and a break for lunch (and some motrin).
Missed it. I'm reading it now ...

From what it looks like it says that people don't really have full freedom of religion in the USA.

a reply to: beezzer

Most people's religious practices and method and place of worship doesn't include any kind of discrimination.
Greet
Prayer
Sermon
Prayer
Libation
Song
Song
Prayer
Depart
Yep. Discrimination not part of religious practice.
What people do in the name of religion is not the same as religious practice.
Your personal rights extend only to the point it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.