Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

I just told you that I have better things to do then hunt down racist black businesses in the ghetto so I can sue them when they deny me service. To be honest, even in Baltimore it would be a needle in a haystack. I'd be more likely to get robbed or jumped for wandering into the wrong neighborhood before I get turned away from a business because I'm white.

Now you really sound like a racist.

Seriously.

Why because I speak the truth about the city I live in? That I admit that black people can be racist and WILL attack white people for wondering into the wrong parts of town? That I doubt that I will find a black business that will refuse me service? What exactly is racist about what I just said?

I'd be more likely to get robbed or jumped for wandering into the wrong neighborhood before I get turned away from a business because I'm white.

Your earlier comments also indicate to me that you believe that people are, in fact, not equal and here you imply that some can be presumed to be predisposed to criminal behavior.

Yes, some people ARE predisposed to criminal behavior, but that isn't a racial thing. People of all types are predisposed to criminal behavior. Some of them are racist, and some of them live in the ghetto and are black. It's just a statement of fact. Nothing racist about it.

And again not all people ARE equal, that's why we are having these Civil Rights conversations.

I really don't know what to say to that.

a reply to: FlyersFan

umm clearly a misunderstanding...
you said show me a person who would be willing to work under such circumstances and I had already done that!!

I have no income whatsoever at the moment, I am living off of whatever I can sell and what little money I had when my husband passed away. which well if I don't sell anything more, or don't get enough for what I do sell, well this will be my last month with a roof over my head.

The dear gov't would give a little help with food stamps or with the electric bill as long as I had a roof over my head, but the rest well, by what I understand I am left to fend for myself thank you so much!!

And because of physical reason I have to be very selective as to what kind of job I get, and well my sons have worked as cashiers in convenience stores and they tell me I wouldn't be able to do that even because you have to stock the freezer when the shipments come in and I can't lift things, so well...
the crazy religious beliefs of the business probably wouldn't be at the top of my list of worries if there was a job out there I could do that would let me keep a roof over my head!!!

I am sure that there are many more in situations similar that wouldn't have that luxury either!

originally posted by: FlyersFan
That's YOUR interpretation of the bible. Most Christian churches do not have that interpretation and most have other books besides the bible that they use as rule of law. Again - Catholic Catechism . 1 Billion Christians follow this law book. It's not new. Leviticus isn't new either.

You DO know that I used to be Catholic right?

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism - History

The early church only cared about pederasty and sexual relations among the clergy. It wasn't until later that the Catholic church started caring about sodomy, but when the Catholic Church started caring about sodomy, they cared about ALL forms of sodomy. Not just anal sex between two men. There is also this:

Neither the First Vatican Council nor the Second Vatican Council directly discussed the issue of homosexualty, nor did they alter the judgement of earlier councils. Homosexuality has received no mention in papal encyclicals except for Pope John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor of 1993, which "specifically proclaims the intrinsic evil of the homosexual condition"[44]:207 rejecting the view of some theologians who questioned the basis on which the church condemns as morally unacceptable "direct sterilization, autoeroticism, pre-marital sexual relations, homosexual relations and artificial insemination".[122] However, homosexual activity was frequently referred to as crimen pessimum (the worst crime).[123][124][125][126] including that codified in 1917.[127]

Jesus never said anything about homosexuality either way. But that doesn't matter. What the churches teach is what matters. The Catholics have taught for 2,000 years that homosexuality, and even the participation or the encouragement or approval of it, is a sin. I disagree with that teaching, but that's irrelevant. It's part of the Catholic religion which is 1/2 of the Christians on the planet. That's what they are supposed to follow.

Young U.S. Catholics overwhelmingly accepting of homosexuality

Fully 85% of self-identified Catholics ages 18-29 said in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey that homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with just 13% who said it should be discouraged. Older age groups are less likely to favor acceptance. But even among Catholics ages 65 and older, 57% say that homosexuality should be accepted.

Who's following what now?

a reply to: beezzer

and once those religious businesses get the right to run it how they see religiously moral in their view....who's gonna stop all those fine southern baptists in the south from deciding not to serve the catholics?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your link says that the teachings against homosexuality developed with the church fathers. The church fathers were in the first century or two of the church. That's not 'new'. And leviticus is older than that.

As for Catholics not following it. Yep. I said that before ... most Catholics I know aren't anti-homosexual and many are for marriage equality. (GOOD!!)

But it's still on the books. That's church law. The previous question was 'where is it in the religious books'. So I showed it.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: beezzer

and once those religious businesses get the right to run it how they see religiously moral in their view....who's gonna stop all those fine southern baptists in the south from deciding not to serve the catholics?

I think you can rest easy.

Soon, Muslim bakeries will be forced to sell cakes decorated with pictures of Muhammed, Christian bakeries will have to cater gay weddings and kosher deli's will have BLT's on the menu.

Because, you know, public accomidation and we don't want to offend anyone.

a reply to: dawnstar
Okay. A miscommunication because of internet and posting.
It happens.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

You said that women worked where they needed a note from their husband. I said show me a person with half a brain willing to work in such a place. You said ... I DID!

She did show you. She didn't mean she did work at one.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

We got it. It was a miscommunication because things aren't always clear or picked up on correctly on internet forums. It's all good.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kaylaluv

The reason why I don't believe so many of you is that you don't hesitate to impose, restrict, deny religious freedoms. Not once have I ever seen any of you supporting religious expression.

Now you may in your life and on another site, but here (as it is the only thing I can go on) you don't.

Hell, there are those of you that openly mock and despise religion!

So color me skeptical that most of you could give a damn about religious freedoms of expression.

It's not "trendy" or "hip" or "cool" or whatever the kids are calling it these days to support religious freedoms of expression.

The reason you haven't seen anyone of us stand up against Christian persecution is because it doesn't happen in this country. Christianity is the highest religious demographic by a LARGE margin. There is no feasible way Christianity COULD be discriminated against and it stand up for any length of time. But mostly, Christianity is USUALLY the demographic doing the discriminating. Then when people object to it, Christians like you pretend like your religious rights are being assaulted.

It's not "trendy" or "hip" or "cool" or whatever the kids are calling it these days to support religious freedoms of expression.

a reply to: beezzer

maybe kids today, don't like what they see with religion around the world. The intolerance and hypocrisy of Christianity and the murderous actions of Islam in the Middle East. Not something the young and generally more liberal youth would want to support.

I have to go because real life stuff has to happen (and I have a pounding headache and have to get off). I just want to say that this is an excellent topic and has been an excellent discussion. Lots of good information and thought provoking posts. Thanks to BH for bringing the topic up.

/OUT

originally posted by: beezzer
The reason why I don't believe so many of you is that you don't hesitate to impose, restrict, deny religious freedoms. Not once have I ever seen any of you supporting religious expression.

You have seen me supporting religious expression. If you say you haven't, you have a selective memory.

It's not "trendy" or "hip" or "cool" or whatever the kids are calling it these days to support religious freedoms of expression.

The first amendment is ALWAYS cool and hip. The argument isn't that religious people shouldn't be permitted to express their beliefs or practice their religion. The argument is that discrimination isn't a religious tenet.

a reply to: FlyersFan

You are trying to make a case for Catholic religious expression, but Catholics aren't even following that anymore. Where is it said that Protestants are supposed to discriminate against homosexuals? Keep in mind, this is a majority Protestant nation, not a Catholic one (Catholics actually used to be heavily discriminated against at the turn of the 1900's).

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

Superfluous to who?

Apparently not the Religious Right who want to control people's lives.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr

It's not "trendy" or "hip" or "cool" or whatever the kids are calling it these days to support religious freedoms of expression.

a reply to: beezzer

maybe kids today, don't like what they see with religion around the world. The intolerance and hypocrisy of Christianity and the murderous actions of Islam in the Middle East. Not something the young and generally more liberal youth would want to support.


You're right. Why support a freedom that is unpopular!

Maybe we should get rid of it, not too many actually supporting it anymore.

a reply to: beezzer

don't they use stencils when they put pictures on the cakes? if so well the bakery has the right to chose what stencils they buy and thus use, same with the kosher delis!! as for the christian bakeries, well I kind of got a feeling that they will have the same ability to control their artistic expressions on their items!

a reply to: beezzer

I have NEVER said that any church or private religious organization should be forced to go against their ideology. I have said that churches have the right to deny anyone membership for any reason, and to not officiate in any marriage ceremony that they don't agree with. While I didn't personally agree with the Boy Scouts not wanting to allow gay boy scouts, I publicly defended their right as a private religious-based organization to deny anyone they wanted.

I draw the line at businesses that provide goods and services to the public. It would be too easy for people to abuse the "freedom of religious expression" concept in order to shut whole groups of people out of the market place. I don't buy the "they can go shop somewhere else" argument. In some areas, that is not a convenient option. And in other areas, you'll see multiple businesses banding together to shut an undesirable group of people out of the area by simply refusing to service them. Don't say that would never happen, because it HAS happened in our country. And it can happen again - if we let it.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

BH, it is no longer popular or "right" to support religious freedoms.

You may be one of the few who do support it, but I have a hard time believing that many would lose sleep if the 1st Amendment was deleted.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The first amendment is ALWAYS cool and hip. The argument isn't that religious people shouldn't be permitted to express their beliefs or practice their religion. The argument is that discrimination isn't a religious tenet.

It gets annoying to me that Equal Rights seems to always turn into Christian persecution.

They really need to get over themselves.