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: 19
21
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.


That's the catch by legislation you are indeed trying to change religious beliefs. Doesn't matter if you want to say it's in the name of equality or anyrhing else. If your saying a priest had to marry them or a Christian has to help with their services you are using laws to change their beliefs. Any everyone doesn't have the same rights is society because people do have certain beliefs. I can't go into a woman's locker room why is that?? Simple society sees it ad inappropriate it is a belief. Is there truly any reason women and men can't shower together Romans had communal bath houses. Beliefs do regulate behavior and forcing someone to go against there beliefs is just wrong.
edit on 5/20/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Just to be clear, this isn't at all about forcing churches or religious people to marry gay people. It's about businesses discriminating against gay folks by refusing to sell them their product.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

You mean like laws about killing someone? Or anti-discrimination laws? You make it sound like these laws were expressly written to mess with religious people. These laws were written to protect people. To say otherwise is extrememly disingenuous.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

He does not need an executive order according to the constitution you can serve whoever you want on your private property. We are so far down the path of tyranny that we do not even understand liberty or the constitution anymore.




If a gay man opened a bar and only wanted to serve other gay men guess what.......This is real freedom. And let me make myself clear private property is your choice public is just that public and serves everyone equally.
edit on 20-5-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

My issue was selling flowers for a gay wedding! I will never
accept a gay marriage or do a gay wedding.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr


That's the catch by legislation you are indeed trying to change religious beliefs. Doesn't matter if you want to say it's in the name of equality or anyrhing else. If your saying a priest had to marry them or a Christian has to help with their services you are using laws to change their beliefs.


You're not changing their beliefs, but you are changing the way they can express their beliefs.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: beezzer

You mean like laws about killing someone? Or anti-discrimination laws? You make it sound like these laws were expressly written to mess with religious people. These laws were written to protect people. To say otherwise is extrememly disingenuous.


If a law is written that forbids a person from expressing their religious beliefs, is it a constitutional law?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Not if those beliefs are going to directly cause someone else hardship. It's wrong to honor the beliefs of someone who sets out to hurt someone else or make their life difficult just because they exist. After all, Muslim fundamentalists believe that unbelievers should be beheaded. If someone from ISIS moved to the states, should we let him honor his beliefs to behead everyone who doesn't believe as he does? Religious freedom right?
edit on 20-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
So basically, law makers are directly changing/altering religious expression.


No one, lawmakers included, can change what someone believes. Religious expression is not absolute.

Legal Definition of Religious Freedom


The Framers' understanding of the Free Exercise Clause is illustrated by the New York Constitution of 1777, which stated,

[T]he free exercise and enjoyment of religious … worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever … be allowed … to all mankind: Provided, that the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State. (N.Y. Const. Art. 1 § 3)


Legal Definition of Licentiousness



Acting without regard to law, ethics, or the rights of others.

edit on 5/20/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

So you're saying I shouldn't have the right to refuse you service for any reason? If I own a small incorporated business that sells Product X or offers Service X and you come in and want this and I decide for whatever reason that I don't want to sell to you and I'd rather not take your money THAT is a crime?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dragonridr

Not if those beliefs are going to directly cause someone else hardship. It's wrong to honor the beliefs of someone who sets out to hurt someone else or make their life difficult just because they exist. After all, Muslim fundamentalists believe that unbelievers should be beheaded. If someone from ISIS moved to the states, should we let him honor his beliefs to behead everyone who doesn't believe as he does? Religious freedom right?


Hardship isn't an excuse to deny someone the right to worship.If this doesn't do any physical harm like denying medical attention. Then we as a society have no right to tell a person what they must do or believe when it comes to religion. That excuse has been used for centuries it's one of the reasons religious groups flicked to the new world from Europe. Laws were being enacted to prevent the practice of certain religions.I think it's incredibly stupid to deny someone anything based off religion but I also defend their right to do so in accordance with their religion.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

My issue was selling flowers for a gay wedding! I will never
accept a gay marriage or do a gay wedding.


I know. I support you to have your beliefs. I don't agree with your beliefs, but if you don't want to serve flowers for a gay wedding, then you shouldn't be in business serving the public.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Then I guess lawmakers can over-ride the Constitution and control/manipulate religious expression.

Why do we even have the Constitution if laws can over-ride it?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
If a gay man opened a bar and only wanted to serve other gay men guess what.......This is real freedom. And let me make myself clear private property is your choice public is just that public and serves everyone equally.


This. Let's cut the crap on discrimination. Nobody complains if a black man chooses not to serve a white man, or if a gay couple wanted to choose not to provide a service for an enthusiastic Christian couple, or even if Hooters restaurant chooses not to hire girls that don't have...er...hooters. Let's not even talk about the strip clubs. Should they hire any girl (heck, why stop at women) that walks in?

The only reason this is an issue is because it's got a Christian background. Everyone flips their # (even though it doesn't affect them) when a Christian wants to do Christian things. If my above examples are all acceptable - and we know they are - then a Christian business choosing not to serve a certain demographic is equally acceptable (or, conversely, they're all equally unacceptable, and I expect some people start some threads about Hooters and black on white discrimination).



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
If a law is written that forbids a person from expressing their religious beliefs, is it a constitutional law?


You clearly haven't read the post I linked that defines religious expression. Religious expression is not absolute. Religious people can't do anything they want to and say it's because of their religion. www.abovetopsecret.com...



"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



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

My issue was selling flowers for a gay wedding! I will never
accept a gay marriage or do a gay wedding.


I know. I support you to have your beliefs. I don't agree with your beliefs, but if you don't want to serve flowers for a gay wedding, then you shouldn't be in business serving the public.


Who are you to say they shouldn't be in business because they choose to only sell (and profit from) certain demographics? That's her freedom. I don't think I have a right to go buy flowers from ANY flower shop. I have an opportunity to do so. Some may even say a privilege. Where is that a RIGHT? She has a constitutionally protected RIGHT to practice her religion and live by it, and if that includes limiting her own business to abide by her own beliefs (regardless of who agrees with them) so be it.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
Hardship isn't an excuse to deny someone the right to worship.


No one is denying anyone the right to worship.


If this doesn't do any physical harm like denying medical attention. Then we as a society have no right to tell a person what they must do or believe when it comes to religion.


We as a society have moved past physical harm being the only type of harm that matters. We now recognize emotional, economic, and social harms as well as others. Yes, they all matter.


That excuse has been used for centuries it's one of the reasons religious groups flicked to the new world from Europe. Laws were being enacted to prevent the practice of certain religions.I think it's incredibly stupid to deny someone anything based off religion but I also defend their right to do so in accordance with their religion.


This isn't the same thing. This is making sure that someone can walk into a place of business, give them money for whatever product that business is selling, and leave with the product in hand without being denied service based on some arbitrary reason that the owner disapproves of for "religious" reasons. The Puritans in England left England because the government was LITERALLY arresting them for being Puritans.

History of the Puritans from 1649 - Persecution of Dissenters, 1662-72


Though expelled from their pulpits in 1662, many of the non-conforming ministers continued to preach to their followers in private homes and other locations. These private meetings were known as conventicles. The congregations that they formed around the non-conforming ministers at this time form the nucleus for the later English Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Baptist denominations. The Cavalier Parliament responded hostilely to the continued influence of the non-conforming ministers. In 1664, it passed the Conventicle Act banning religious assemblies of more than five people outside of the Church of England. In 1665, it passed the Five Mile Act, forbidding ejected ministers from living within five miles of a parish from which they had been banned, unless they swore an oath never to resist the king, or attempt to alter the government of Church or State. Under the penal laws forbidding religious dissent (generally known to history as the Clarendon Code), many ministers were imprisoned in the latter half of the 1660s. One of the most notable victims of the penal laws during this period (though he was not himself an ejected minister) was John Bunyan,a Baptist, who was imprisoned from 1660 to 1672.


THAT is actual religious persecution. Making sure that a business serves everyone who enters its doors equally ISN'T religious persecution, no matter which ways you slice it.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
If a gay man opened a bar and only wanted to serve other gay men guess what.......This is real freedom. And let me make myself clear private property is your choice public is just that public and serves everyone equally.


This. Let's cut the crap on discrimination. Nobody complains if a black man chooses not to serve a white man, or if a gay couple wanted to choose not to provide a service for an enthusiastic Christian couple, or even if Hooters restaurant chooses not to hire girls that don't have...er...hooters. Let's not even talk about the strip clubs. Should they hire any girl (heck, why stop at women) that walks in?


Actually if any of those things happen, people would have PLENTY to complain about considering each of those is a lawsuit waiting to happen. There was a case a while back where a man sued Hooters because they wouldn't hire him as a waiter.

Hooters Settles Suit By Men Denied Jobs


The only reason this is an issue is because it's got a Christian background. Everyone flips their # (even though it doesn't affect them) when a Christian wants to do Christian things. If my above examples are all acceptable - and we know they are - then a Christian business choosing not to serve a certain demographic is equally acceptable (or, conversely, they're all equally unacceptable, and I expect some people start some threads about Hooters and black on white discrimination).


None of your above examples are acceptable, so you have a moot point.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I guess you are correct.

The law can over-ride religious expression as guaranteed by the US Constitution.

I guess no more is needed to debate.

Congrats! I conceed. (like it matters. . . . )

As I said, there is a winner and loser in this.

And religious expression lost.

You sourced it very well. I honestly have no counter to your argument.

Well done.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I really don't like too much government intervention.


Me -- 40 year CA Goldwater Republican. The R party left me as it became more Fundie. Now unaffiliated.

The thing about government IMO is -- its reactionary. No one says, "Hey! I'm gonna make a law today for no reason". If people would mind their own business and just accept people, letting them live their own lives -- there would be less government. But, that is never going to happen.

Some Libertarians would eliminate both the Fair Housing Act and Disability Act as being too much government. Do you agree with that?

Back to Equal Rights ---- honestly the only group I see causing a "reactionary" situation is the Fundie Right. It's unnecesary. And this is a secular government.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join