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: 21
21
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth




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.


Wow! And you're still married to him?




posted on May, 20 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Yeah,and this same man had me taught how to drive a car and shoot a gun.
I have my C.C.W. and he doesn't!
What is this world coming to?
edit on 20-5-2015 by mamabeth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: 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.


Wrong. The 14th Amendment does not "prohibit discrimination based on race or gender." What you're referring to is obviously the equal protections clause and there's no qualifiers (race, gender or other). Also, you've declared that gays and lesbians are making a "choice" to live "a lifestyle" which isn't supported by any scientific understanding of human sexuality that I'm aware of. Because you feel that sexuality is a choice, you see discrimination against gays and lesbians as the lesser of two infringements which is really odd considering that of the two (religious belief and sexuality), religious belief seems to be a lot more of a choice than sexuality.

As for action versus inaction, sounds like semantics games to me. Inaction can in fact cause harm, particularly when it comes to negligence. If a parent chooses not to feed their child and the child dies, the parents negligence resulted in the child's death. If I'm your employer and I decide not to pay you come pay day, have you been harmed by my inaction? I'd think so.

Lastly, where exactly in the example of a baker selling a cake to a gay person does the curtailing of religious freedom occur and how great is the harm caused by this infringement? Because I'm not seeing it. Baking and selling a cake is certainly not participating in a wedding ceremony (cakes are served at receptions and have no religious significance and don't require the baker to attend the reception let alone the ceremony).



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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


It's not a moot point - your denial of the possibility of other examples of discrimination is ridiculous. Why won't you admit this is targeted anti-Christian discrimination?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

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.
True sort of the scout leader can get permission From the girl scouts. But another example is the Boy scouts ban on gay scout leaders it has been upheld in court giving them the right to set standards for their scout leaders. You cannot expect people to change their beliefs nor accommodate yours. In this case a gay couple just needs to have other options than infringing on the rights of others because you believe you have the right to do So. No easy answers here but in the end we need to look at the constitution and religious freedoms.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.


Or, you know, the fact that (depending on the poll) 70-85% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. The percentage is falling but it's still a large majority. I'd personally be inclined to state that the vast majority of this group leans towards fundamentalist values although it's not kosher to express these values anymore so everyone stays silent.

Perhaps I'm confusing you with someone else but didn't you state a while back that the majority of people don't want to go to war and polls proved that wrong, and here you are again stating something incorrectly about a majority? Apologies if that wasn't you.

USA Today
ABC News
Time Magazine



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
In this case a gay couple just needs to have other options than infringing on the rights of others because you believe you have the right to do So. No easy answers here but in the end we need to look at the constitution and religious freedoms.


Belief has nothing to do with Equal Rights.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

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.
A church is not a public accomodation or business. No church has ever been forced to marry a same sex couple, nor will they ever be. Where did this idea even come from?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

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.
This is for businesses.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: stolencar18

so if a majority of americans suddenly developed a belief that all red headed people should be burnt at the stake, would you still be supporting their right to religious belief? the majority rules only as long as their rule doesn't infringe on another's rights.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Christian businesses...so, let's see....you can make a profit off of people, keep it for yourself, and STILL proclaim yourself to be Christian, and on top of it, the government sticks up for your religious principles?.....right.....that's so Christ-like......God and Jesus both do face-palms at the same time.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   

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.


No one is talking about churches being forced to perform same sex marriages though. It's about state recognized marriages being recognized for the legal and financial benefits they provide such as power of attorney when one person falls ill.

The other part of the debate has to do with treating sexual orientation the same way we treat race, gender, height, weight, and so on. Again something that I'll point out won't harm the church as churches still exclude women from being priests and other positions depending on the church. They are however saying that a business can't refuse service to someone for being gay, just as they can't refuse service to someone for being black.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
A church is not a public accomodation or business. No church has ever been forced to marry a same sex couple, nor will they ever be. Where did this idea even come from?


People keep getting this from the Right Wing Media Propagandists who keep pushing that lie. There was never a threat of forcing any church or anyone in the church to marry anyone. This has been discussed over and over again but it still keeps coming up because people either don't listen the first time or they've been taken in by the lies coming from Fox News or others like them.

The fact they continue pushing that same lie on the public tell you two things. One, they will knowingly lie to get what they want. Two, they lie because they don't have a real and honest argument to put forward.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: stolencar18

so if a majority of americans suddenly developed a belief that all red headed people should be burnt at the stake, would you still be supporting their right to religious belief? the majority rules only as long as their rule doesn't infringe on another's rights.


There's a big difference between suddenly developing a belief and a belief system upon which the US (and countless other countries) were founded on. You can argue that point all you like - many do - but the fact is the US has always been a majority Christian country. That issue isn't entirely relevant to the post - my comment was in response to someone saying that the vast majority of the country doesn't hold Christian views.

My two cents...Why don't we all cut the "what's legal?" bull. Half of the ATS member base spends time pointing out how this batch of laws is illegal and the rest complain about the other batch of laws that is illegal. Everyone whines that parts or all of the constitution should be chucked out (and then uses the constitution as protection when it benefits them). People complain that certain laws are "bad" or "biased" or "partisan" but when an opposing view states otherwise that view is thrown out. I don't think this site is really here to debate legality when who-knows-what-percent of the threads on here are talking about illegal activities by people/government. Anyone trying to stand on laws in this thread is a hypocrite and you all have the post history somewhere to prove it. I think we all know that if it suddenly became law to give up our email passwords and Facebook passwords to employers everyone would riot and claim the law steps on their rights. Perhaps the example is off topic but my point stands: You don't get to pick and choose which laws to uphold and which to disobey, and you don't get to cite laws to make some points and ignore laws to push others.

My belief is I have the right to serve who I want and refuse to serve who I want, to a degree. To add to that, let's all stop pretending that gays/lesbians are fighting for equality. They have equality. Their intent is to take away the sanctity of marriage as it has always been defined (man and woman). Their intent isn't to be married in the eyes of God or a church or a priest. It's to step on the toes of everyone else. Being gay/lesbian doesn't make you better than anyone else, but they sure act like it. They already have the same rights as everyone else (barring a few states where they have some catching up to do). Why should the definition of marriage be changed to suit a certain group? Why should my beliefs be thrown aside to suit a certain group?

If the debate is whether or not a Christian should serve/sell to a gay couple, I'd say yes, they should, because Christians should love all and let God do the judging later. But if the debate is whether or not it is/should be legal to refuse service to gays I think everyone on here should take a deep breath and quit spouting off this law and that law.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18
To add to that, let's all stop pretending that gays/lesbians are fighting for equality. They have equality. Their intent is to take away the sanctity of marriage as it has always been defined (man and woman).


Even if they wanted to, how can they "take away the sanctity of marriage"? 37 states have marriage equality. Has it affected your marriage? ANYONE'S marriage? No, it hasn't.

Let's stop pretending that gay people getting married will have ANY EFFECT on marriage between a man and a woman.

If gay people had equality, they'd be able to get married in any state (just like we can) and they'd be able to go into any place of business and be served (just like we can).

Let's stop pretending they already have equality.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
Christian businesses...so, let's see....you can make a profit off of people, keep it for yourself, and STILL proclaim yourself to be Christian, and on top of it, the government sticks up for your religious principles?.....right.....that's so Christ-like......God and Jesus both do face-palms at the same time.

I'm not sure if you have a clue what you're talking about. In fact I know you don't.

In no place does the Bible (or most other religious texts) prohibit or frown upon wealth. In fact it actually encourages it, along with generosity, kindness, etc. The Bible has many, many references about building your own wealth (including profits, etc). It frowns on greed and selfishness, but why is making a profit greedy or selfish?

The Bible is quite clear on the issue actually. Do your business. Pay your taxes. Tithe. Be generous. Be successful and honest and hand it down to your children. I'm summarizing, but you get the point.

How does this relate to serving/selling to gays? Christians are free to serve/sell to people, and some may choose to serve/sell to only certain people. That doesn't really show equal love to everyone, which I disagree with, but I defend their right to freely make that choice based on their beliefs.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18
Christians are free to serve/sell to people, and some may choose to serve/sell to only certain people.


So, you'd be OK with businesses turning away someone because they're Christian? Would you be OK with the ONLY grocery store in the town turning away someone because they're Christian?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: stolencar18
To add to that, let's all stop pretending that gays/lesbians are fighting for equality. They have equality. Their intent is to take away the sanctity of marriage as it has always been defined (man and woman).


Even if they wanted to, how can they "take away the sanctity of marriage"? 37 states have marriage equality. Has it affected your marriage? ANYONE'S marriage? No, it hasn't.

Let's stop pretending that gay people getting married will have ANY EFFECT on marriage between a man and a woman.

If gay people had equality, they'd be able to get married in any state (just like we can) and they'd be able to go into any place of business and be served (just like we can).

Let's stop pretending they already have equality.


Maybe it hasn't affected your marriage (assuming you're married...) but perhaps others feel it has. Has there been a physical impact? Of course not, but this isn't about physical impacts at all. It's about psychological and emotional impacts, about philosophically pushing one perspective against another as if it's better.

It's actually the perspectives like yours that prove my point. 20 posts standing on various laws to beef up your opinion and now outright denying that my opinion could possibly be valid when I tell you to quit posing. In no way are gays hurt by not being able to marry and having to go the civil union route instead. They get the same rights, same benefits, same everything in virtually all states. There's no reason whatsoever to have to change the long-standing definition of marriage.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: stolencar18
Christians are free to serve/sell to people, and some may choose to serve/sell to only certain people.


So, you'd be OK with businesses turning away someone because they're Christian? Would you be OK with the ONLY grocery store in the town turning away someone because they're Christian?


Of course! I'm not pro- or anti-Christian, pro- or anti-gay, or really pro- anti- any other groups. I have my beliefs but I don't think my beliefs trump anyone elses. I believe I should be able to live my life according to my beliefs so long as they don't harm anyone else, and vice versa. If a store doesn't want to serve me I can move, or I can start my own store, or I can find another way to get my groceries/flowers/baked goods, or I can...you get the point. The store owner hasn't harmed me. He's inconvenienced me. He's lost a customer. He's hurt his own pocketbook. But he hasn't hurt me or taken away my rights. There's a big difference. I don't have a RIGHT to shop anywhere I want, or a RIGHT to buy anything I want from anyone I want. I have that privilege and I believe business owners should have the same privilege to run their business their way, even if it ends up going bankrupt because of it.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: stolencar18

so if a majority of americans suddenly developed a belief that all red headed people should be burnt at the stake, would you still be supporting their right to religious belief? the majority rules only as long as their rule doesn't infringe on another's rights.



But aren't redheads dangerous?





top topics



 
21
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join