Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

originally posted by: beezzer
Soon, Muslim bakeries will be forced to sell cakes decorated with pictures of Muhammed ...and kosher deli's will have BLT's on the menu.

Oh, Lord! You and your star-followers always confuse a PRODUCT with a PERSON. No one wants to force anyone to sell a PRODUCT that they don't carry. You mix them together as if it's the same thing.

a reply to: Annee

That may be mostly due to Christianity co-opting the Republican party. So any "liberal" idea is immediately attacked with Christian ideology and if you implement it then you are "persecuting" Christians.

originally posted by: beezzer

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.

I think you know the definition of discrimination in the market place, but if I have to repeat it yet again... if you refuse to sell the same product or service to one group that you sell to everyone else, that's descrimination.

a reply to: kaylaluv

In our current social environment, you can't have your (gay wedding) cake and eat it too.

You are going to have to support laws that favor one groups rights over another.

There is no scenario here where "both sides" of this issue will win.

Either religious people cannot express themselves at their place of business or they can.

As FF stated, there is going to be a loser in this fight.

And as I stated, it'll be the rights of religious expression that will lose.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

That may be mostly due to Christianity co-opting the Republican party. So any "liberal" idea is immediately attacked with Christian ideology and if you implement it then you are "persecuting" Christians.

Yes, I do mean the Christian Right - - - those associated with the Republican Party.

I did not mean to blanket all Christians - - - as many support Equal Rights.

a reply to: beezzer

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.

What a bunch of BS. Where are "Christian bakeries" being forced to bake cakes decorated in any way that would contradict their religious beliefs? The issue isn't the nature of the product, it's the nature of the customer. The goFundMentalists bakeries don't want to sell anything to gays. I guess the reality of the position you've taken is so indefensible that you'd rather argue against a made up threat?

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

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

I don't care if it's popular or not. Who DOES care? Oh, you do...

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.

Beez, this is pouting. And it's BS. The first protects the right of free exercise of religion. Read carefully:

"Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order," In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee). The Court stated that to rule otherwise, "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances."[27] In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states. While the right to have religious beliefs is absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not absolute.

Cantwell v Connecticut

Free Exercise of Religion

a reply to: theantediluvian

I'd rather defend the rights of bigots than allow ANY liberites/freedoms be removed. For whatever reason.

a reply to: Annee

What's actually mind boggling is that the Democratic party is over majority Christian as well. It isn't as high as the Republican party, but it is certainly above 50% (I think it is above 70% actually). Many of the times the religious right is positioning a religious argument against people who believe the same things they do. Then they can't see why the other side disagrees with them. Maybe it's because they see the religious rights' BS for what it is. Political rhetoric.

a reply to: beezzer

but isn't either a fight that has already been lost or maybe even one that the business community felt wasn't worth fight until quite recently???

why is it that hobby lobby had no issue with buying a great deal of their inventory from businesses operating in a country that used these businesses to enforce their one child policy which sometimes involved forced abortions, but well suddenly had an issue with providing birth control coverage in their insurance policies??

I suppose one could argue that buying from chinese companies was the most profitable avenue, but still, you are saying that the customers should go seeking another business to buy their wares if a business finds selling to them objectionable or employees can find another company to work for if they want the birth control. I would expect that the same reasoning would be used when these businesses are buying their inventory!!

a reply to: beezzer

Religious people can express themselves at their place of business. They can wear t-shirts with Leviticus quotes. They can wear crosses and other religious paraphernalia. They can say "God bless you" or "Jesus loves you" to each and every customer that walks in. Is that not religious expression?

People can't use religious expression to behead non-believers, nor can they use religious expression to discriminate in the market place.

Gay couples can't walk into a place of business naked, drunk, and having sex in front of everyone - and still expect to get service at the same time. They don't have the right to break the laws any more than the religious people.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: theantediluvian

I'd rather defend the rights of bigots than allow ANY liberites/freedoms be removed. For whatever reason.

I would, too. And I do. Thing is, there is no right to discriminate, so no rights are being removed. Religious people do NOT have the freedom to discriminate or run their business any way they see fit. They have to obey the law. No rights, freedoms or liberties are being removed. These imagined rights didn't exist in the first place!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

What's actually mind boggling is that the Democratic party is over majority Christian as well. It isn't as high as the Republican party, but it is certainly above 50% (I think it is above 70% actually). Many of the times the religious right is positioning a religious argument against people who believe the same things they do. Then they can't see why the other side disagrees with them. Maybe it's because they see the religious rights' BS for what it is. Political rhetoric.

Correct. I believe the majority of Christians support Equal Rights.

The Fundies make a lot of noise about Religious Freedom. That no one cares about Religious Freedom. Liberals are trying to take away Religious Freedom.

Uh, are they blinded to the fact that means support for Islam belief too? They seem to forget that - - at least on ATS.

a reply to: beezzer
Like an illness it's probably not that easy to get rid off. I'm sure the cure is an increased exposure to modern science and witnessing the negative effects of religion will speed up the process. You don't see the Greeks still lamenting the loss of greek gods. The myths make a good tourist attractions though

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

But religious people don't see it as "discrimination".

They see it as themselves obeying their religious tenets. They either follow their tenets, or they can't.

originally posted by: Annee
Correct. I believe the majority of Christians support Equal Rights.

Me too.

The Fundies make a lot of noise about Religious Freedom. That no one cares about Religious Freedom. Liberals are trying to take away Religious Freedom.

The problem is that the religious right has started catering to these people... Then they angrily exclude anyone who doesn't follow these ideas with phrases like "RINO".

I'm an independent and I guess right now I lean slightly to the left, but I'd much rather lean to the slightly to the right (I do call myself a Libertarian for a reason). I really don't like too much government intervention. It's just that many of the opinions and beliefs of the right are bat# insane... So I can't relate to that side of the political spectrum. Maybe if the right would catch back up with reality, I could rejoin their side, but for now they just continue to alienate themselves from reality then cry foul whenever anyone calls them on it.

Uh, are they blinded to the fact that means support for Islam belief too? They seem to forget that - - at least on ATS.

Good catch. Sometimes it is hard to realize that the majority opinions of ATS aren't necessarily the majority opinions of the country. Especially if you spend a lot of time here.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

But religious people don't see it as "discrimination".

They see it as themselves obeying their religious tenets. They either follow their tenets, or they can't.

And ISIS doesn't see beheading non-believers as discrimination either. They claim they are just following their tenets. Either they can or they can't, right?

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

But religious people don't see it as "discrimination".

They see it as themselves obeying their religious tenets. They either follow their tenets, or they can't.

And ISIS doesn't see beheading non-believers as discrimination either. They claim they are just following their tenets. Either they can or they can't, right?

If you are going to compare a christian baker to ISIS, then that is your right to do so.

But for me, that simply means that this thread has jumped the shark.

Have a wonderful day.

a reply to: beezzer

If a bakery owned by a Christian sells a cake — a normal cake, just a typical 3 tier vanilla cake with vanilla frosting of the variety they've likely baked a thousand times — to a same sex couple and that couple serves it to guests at a wedding reception, what harm was done to the baker?

If the supreme court rules that same sex marriage is legal and a same sex couple in Louisiana can't find a shop within a 50 mile radius of their home to sell them a cake and all of the florists and the tailors refuse to sell them flowers and garments and the justice of the peace won't marry them, what harm is done to the couple?

The stock answer I often read is "they could just go somewhere else, who wants to buy a cake from somebody who doesn't want to sell it to them!" but what happens if it's further than a 50 mile radius, what if it's the entire state? What if it's the entire region? The country? People act as if this is some sort unbelievable notion despite the fact that we're barely 50 years past racial segregation.

This isn't an issue of people "being offended" but rather one of people being denied equal opportunity to enjoy the fundamental benefits conferred on all members of a free society. When people are systematically denied access to public accommodations, they become second class citizens. That's as much a crime as theft and in fact, I'd go so far as to say it's a form of theft.

Where's the nobility in a political (religious-political?) group attempting to wield the power of the state to make second class citizens of an entire group of people because they don't like them?