Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

Unless he's a true moron, Jindal, (or any other current GOP 'candidate'), can't honestly believe he can EVER be elected President. The idiotic things that come out of his mouth are bought and paid for by his billionaire benefactors. He's just a clown getting rich off the poor people of LA.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

a reply to: beezzer

I just can't see this as an only gay issue or only birth control issue...
if businesses can deny groups of people based on their religious beliefs or deny medical coverage based on their religious beliefs what sane person can believe that it's just gonna be confined to one or two political hot buttons and still take the idea that any of it is on behalf of the religious believers? one religious group has something against birth control, another has something against blood transfusions, in order to "protect" their belief we'd have to deny coverage in both cases but well, we just chose to deny coverage for the birth control and this should make perfect sense right?
it doesn't!!
just like if a business has a problem providing a wedding cake for a gay wedding and therefore is able to avoid it based on their belief well, what about the marriage of a divorced person, or the birth of an illigitimate child?

the christian religion can be summed up in few words, do unto other as you would have them do unto you and love they neighbor as thyself. no one here I am sure would want to find out that their insurance, because of religious belief, wasn't gonna cover the blood transfusion that just saved their life! I imagine it would really make them feel quite crappy about things! and yet, birth control can save lives also!
the spirit behind this is not love, nor would anyone out there like to be treated in like manner.
the issues, the groups that are being targeted are only being targeting for political reasons.
and well if you would like to protect the christian religion, maybe you should start demanding that they get it out of the political arena because it's doing more harm than good for the religion to be used in this manner.

a reply to: beezzer

Laws are laws - who are you to say that it's okay to break some laws but not others? Then anyone gets to decide which law they feel is okay to break. Is that how we want our society to run?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: beezzer

I just can't see this as an only gay issue or only birth control issue...
if businesses can deny groups of people based on their religious beliefs or deny medical coverage based on their religious beliefs what sane person can believe that it's just gonna be confined to one or two political hot buttons and still take the idea that any of it is on behalf of the religious believers? one religious group has something against birth control, another has something against blood transfusions, in order to "protect" their belief we'd have to deny coverage in both cases but well, we just chose to deny coverage for the birth control and this should make perfect sense right?
it doesn't!!

I agree with you. People later down the line ALWAYS take an idea in a direction that it wasn't originally intended to be used for. If we open the gates to allow such things, the religious WILL attempt to use that to discriminate against things further. As I've already pointed out several times on this thread, this same argument was attempted in the 60's for Segregation. So count on it to morph with the issues that are offending Christians of the day.

the christian religion can be summed up in few words, do unto other as you would do unto them and love they neighbor as thyself. no one here I am sure would want to find out that their insurance, because of religious belief, wasn't gonna cover the blood transfusion that just saved their life! I imagine it would really make them feel quite crappy about things! and yet, birth control can save lives also!
the spirit behind this is not love, nor would anyone out there like to be treated in like manner.
the issues, the groups that are being targeted are only being targeting for political reasons.
and well if you would like to protect the christian religion, maybe you should start demanding that they get it out of the political arena because it's doing more harm than good for the religion to be used in this manner.

To the part I bolded. HERE HERE! I couldn't agree more.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: beezzer

Laws are laws - who are you to say that it's okay to break some laws but not others? Then anyone gets to decide which law they feel is okay to break. Is that how we want our society to run?

That's how I do things. I break some laws fairly regularly because I think they're BS. There are others I would never break because it's common sense.

But by all means obey every law no matter how questionable.

Now let's take all right or wrong or left or right or discrimination or anything.

Let's just cut down to if nothing else matters except strategy in a presidential election.

He appealed to his right leaning base...and positioned himself well in the primaries...but alienated himself from moderates in the general election, meaning that in a general election hes losing points to any of the democratic nominees. Begging the question, what's the point of winning a primary if you can't swing the moderate votes and win the main event? You can't win the election.

originally posted by: beezzer
But religious people don't see it as "discrimination".

It really doesn't matter what they call it. It's an ACTION based on religious belief and it's not protected in the law. Their BELIEF and right to believe is protected, but not any action they might choose to take.

Read this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh... Or you could just realize that your argument is flawed and decide to leave the thread.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

This is one of the reasons why I cancelled my vendor's license.
I would have to refuse to do any floral arrangements for a gay
wedding.
I cancelled my license a couple of years ago.

originally posted by: corvuscorrax


But by all means obey every law no matter how questionable.

Obey, don't obey - that's up to you. Just be prepared to accept the consequences.

a reply to: mamabeth

I'm sorry but I have to ask just how these flower arrangements would have been different than if you had done them for any other wedding??

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

This is one of the reasons why I cancelled my vendor's license.
I would have to refuse to do any floral arrangements for a gay
wedding.
I cancelled my license a couple of years ago.

I commend you for that. If it's truly your belief that to sell flowers for a gay wedding would be against your religion, you shouldn't be in the business of selling flowers to the public. I totally support that.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

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.

I am completely in favor of marriage equality. What I don't get is forcing those that are not in favor due to religious beliefs, being forced to marry same sex couples. I don't really get why that same sex couple would even want to be united together by a church or priest who doesn't actually support it....baffles me.

I don't think there should be a law that says they can't get married, but I don't think forcing a church to marry them is the right way to go about getting it done.

I agree forcing a priest to marry a couple against the churches beliefs is wrong. But along those same lines the state cannot decline because it is required to treat all the same. so if a gay couple wants to be married at the courthouse than the state should allow that.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

This is a difficult topic in that I agree that there should be equal access, but at the same time, I feel that the religious rights of the individual should be allowed also.

What it comes down to is really very simple.

Religious people are going to have to suck it up and realise that they cannot express their religious convictions.

Sure, they can do it behind closed doors in the privacy of their homes and their church, but nowhere else will they be allowed to do so.

just like you can't force a catholic church to marry a divorced person..
or at least that is how it was not sure if it's still that way.

There was a couple who went to a church I went to,
the man was jewish, his wife was lebanese.
niether could be married under their own religions and well that is how they got to our church!

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: beezzer
But religious people don't see it as "discrimination".

It really doesn't matter what they call it. It's an ACTION based on religious belief and it's not protected in the law. Their BELIEF and right to believe is protected, but not any action they might choose to take.

Read this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh... Or you could just realize that your argument is flawed and decide to leave the thread.

You should never force anyone to do anything contrary to their religion. Yes it may be stupid and yes in the end accomplishes nothing but you cant enforce change of religion by enacting laws. Its agains everything the US was founded on since no ones life is in danger do to the refusal to break their religous faith its well in their rights to decline.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


Religious people are going to have to suck it up and realise that they cannot express their religious convictions.

Sure, they can do it behind closed doors in the privacy of their homes and their church, but nowhere else will they be allowed to do so.

But that's not true! They can express their religious convictions in public, as long as it is not breaking any existing laws.

originally posted by: beezzer
This is a difficult topic in that I agree that there should be equal access, but at the same time, I feel that the religious rights of the individual should be allowed also.

I do, too. But discrimination is not a religious right.

Religious people are going to have to suck it up and realise that they cannot express their religious convictions.

Not if it breaks the law.

Sure, they can do it behind closed doors in the privacy of their homes and their church, but nowhere else will they be allowed to do so.

They can do it wherever they please, as long as it doesn't break the law.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


Religious people are going to have to suck it up and realise that they cannot express their religious convictions.

Sure, they can do it behind closed doors in the privacy of their homes and their church, but nowhere else will they be allowed to do so.

But that's not true! They can express their religious convictions in public, as long as it is not breaking any existing laws.

When you create laws that directly conflict with religious tenets, then they will have no choice but to obey the law and stifle any religious freedom that contradicts the law.

So basically, law makers are directly changing/altering religious expression.

a reply to: dragonridr

No one is forcing the religious to change their beliefs though. The laws are positioned so that they treat everyone equally regardless of religious beliefs. Like I've mentioned several times, this same tactic was used against black people for Segregation. Do you agree that the religious should be allowed to deny black people based on religious beliefs? Because it is literally the same argument that is being made today, just a different minority group this time.

originally posted by: dragonridr
You should never force anyone to do anything contrary to their religion.

No one is doing that. The religious people aren't forced to own a business. But if they do, they should be forced to obey the law, just like the rest of us.

Yes it may be stupid and yes in the end accomplishes nothing but you cant enforce change of religion by enacting laws.

No one is forcing change of religion. They are forcing people to obey the law. It's up to the religious people to deal with the situation where the law of he land and religious law conflict.