Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

a reply to: Annee

See that's the thing. The right has gotten SO crazy that they are driving away their core base. The country isn't majority fundamentalist, but that is the demographic the right appears to appeal to by default now. The fact that almost everything the right stands for has to be a religious discussion now really cements this point home. Sure there are a few issues from the right that are still secular (gun rights, death penalty), but most of them they've let religion intertwine with their beliefs and I and other moderates can't relate anymore.

originally posted by: stolencar18
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.

No, hon. It's not the law. If you're a business person, you cannot refuse service to certain demographics. THAT is the law. Ignorance of the law isn't going to fly here.

a reply to: beezzer

I don't know that it really has anything with expressing one's beliefs. As long as whatever the expression is doesn't cause undue harm to anyone else. For the record, in my own opinion, offending somebody is not harming them unless it rises to the level of harassment (for example, honking your car horn at somebody vs pulling up outside a person's house every morning for two weeks at 3 AM and laying on the horn for 10 minutes to intentionally keep the person from sleeping).

So if a baker wants to wear a shirt that says, "God Hates Gays" or tell offensive black jokes to his white customers in earshot of black customers or adorn his shop with 100000 crosses and bible verses, I think he's well within his legal rights (barring local ordinance, another matter), but he crosses the line the moment he says that he won't sell the exact same cake he would sell to the general public to a person because of their gender/race/sexuality/religion.

The same would apply to similar circumstances across the board. If you're a kosher deli, you're probably not in the business of selling pork or cheeseburgers but what you do sell, you must be willing to sell to everyone. If you're a "Muslim bakery," you more than likely aren't in the business of making cookies decorated with depictions of Muhammed, but whatever cookies you do sell, you must sell to everyone.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

They have gyms that only allow women. I can't be a girl and join the boy scouts. So no everyone doesn't have the same rights in all places. Your mistaking equal rights for the same rights. Expecting a priest to marry you in a Christian church isn't equal rights.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

They have gyms that only allow women. I can't be a girl and join the boy scouts. So no everyone doesn't have the same rights in all places.

Gyms are private clubs. You have to pay a membership fee to join a club, so they are allowed to be exclusive. Likewise for the boy scouts. It is a private club. The same rules don't apply.

originally posted by: beezzer
As I said, there is a winner and loser in this.

And religious expression lost.

If by "religious expression", you mean state-sanctioned religious piety, public disapproval and discrimination against gay people, then I would have to agree with you. That lost. And I'm glad it did.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

No, it's refrain from action. That rather obvious distinction is a tipping point for this issue.

The whole 'your rights end where mine begin' thing is about negotiating the gray areas. My basic civil rights (speech, religion, etc) are guaranteed, up until the point where exercising those rights will prevent you from exercising your own. Sometimes there just isn't a way to allow both parties to exercise every right in every situation, and we have to be satisfied with the next best thing to fair. In these situations, the most objective thing to do is look for distinctions, like action vs inaction. In a way it's about determining which course will result in the least severe infringement of rights.

On one hand, we could forgo constitutional religious freedom so as to prevent potential discrimination based on lifestyle. Forcing a business owner to take an action (participate in a ceremony which is forbidden by his religion) means curtailing his freedom of religion, as well as the undue burden of compulsory labor. As a precedent, it would also greatly erode the rights of all business owners.

The other choice - allowing the 'discrimination' of homosexuals in order to preserve religious liberty (provided the business owner can prove religious hardship) - results in undue hardship for homosexual couples because they would have to find businesses willing to cater to them. It should be noted that this choice means no one is forced to take any specific action.

As constitutionalist, the right choice is clear to me. Nothing in the original Bill of Rights nor any of the other amendments mentions sexual preference. The 14th amendment prohibits discrimination based on race or gender, because a person has no control over those traits. You won't find anything in there about lifestyle, because that is entirely up to choice.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
As constitutionalist, the right choice is clear to me. Nothing in the original Bill of Rights nor any of the other amendments mentions sexual preference. The 14th amendment prohibits discrimination based on race or gender, because a person has no control over those traits. You won't find anything in there about lifestyle, because that is entirely up to choice.

As a constitutionalist, you should know that the 14th doesn't mention race or gender or discrimination. Here's a primer for you.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

14th Amendment

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: beezzer
As I said, there is a winner and loser in this.

And religious expression lost.

If by "religious expression", you mean state-sanctioned religious piety, public disapproval and discrimination against gay people, then I would have to agree with you. That lost. And I'm glad it did.

You can call it whatever you want, but I'll just refer to it as freedoms of religious expression. And you have clearly pointed out that it can and will be denied.

*bravo*

originally posted by: dragonridr
I can't be a girl and join the boy scouts.

Actually, there have been Boy Scout troops that have accepted girls.

In areas that had no scouting program for girls.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

BH...do condescension and spitefulness come across as intellectual discourse in your neck of the woods?

Do you even know what demographics are protected under Federal law? Do you know where to start looking? Do you own a mirror?

Reading through this thread has given me plenty to wonder about...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

passed in 1868...
when did women get the right to vote???

can't decide weather they just didn't consider women as persons or if they didn't consider voting as a right to citizenship....

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
BH...do condescension and spitefulness come across as intellectual discourse in your neck of the woods?

Whose being condescending now?

Do you even know what demographics are protected under Federal law? Do you know where to start looking? Do you own a mirror?

Yes. yes, and yes. This thread isn't about federal law, though. It's about an executive order that Bobby Jindal has signed for the state of Louisiana.

I have been highly involved in this issue since the first lawsuit about it came to ATS. So, I have done tons of research and know quite a lot on the subject. Not sure what that has to do with this thread, however.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

The problem I have with this is that you could potentially have a whole community (like a town in the South perhaps?) where all or most of the businesses decide not to provide their products and services to gays. Now you are talking about shutting a group of people out of the market place, forcing people to leave their jobs and move to another town where they can buy products and services. Where do you draw the line?

a reply to: kaylaluv

naa, that's as far fetched as thinking that it would be danged near impossible to find a job in a rather large city in texas during hard economic times because well we all know that women have husbands to take care of them so they don't need jobs!!!

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It's called the Equal Protection clause, and it's part of the 14th amendment. Invoking it in regard to this issue is ineffectual, but it's the only legal ground you have to stand on so I suggest you familiarize yourself with it. Might provide some much-needed credibility.

And no, it doesn't explicitly mention physical traits, but if you read up a bit you might understand why I brought it up.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
To BH . . . it's part of the 14th amendment. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it. Might provide some much-needed credibility.

LOL ---- I needed a good laugh.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It's called the Equal Protection clause, and it's part of the 14th amendment. Invoking it in regard to this issue is ineffectual

I agree. YOU brought it up.

I mentioned it a few pages ago in a discussion with someone else, but not pertaining to this particular issue. When YOU brought it up, I highlighted the equal protection clause.

a reply to: dawnstar

In my husband's opinion...The day that women got the right to
vote was the beginning of the end and the downfall of the U.S.

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: dawnstar

In my husband's opinion...The day that women got the right to
vote was the beginning of the end and the downfall of the U.S.

Why on earth should a gender majority have any say in how their lives are governed.

What were they thinking letting women vote.