Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
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.

No religious organization is forced to marry same sex couples, that has not happened in any country where same sex marriage is legal. The same would apply in the US.

This law has nothing to do with Christians being forced to marry a same sex couple, or be forced to agree with the marriage, or forced to give them a gift, or forced to give up their religion....

This law is about giving Christians an exclusive right to be bigots, to discriminate against LGBT in business, employment, education, treatment, rights, benefits...

This law (and all other "religious restoration" laws like it) has one purpose, to allow one religious group the freedom to abuse others and treat them as second class citizens based on their cherry-picked text.

If he forces this law, the people should protest loud and constantly, until he is removed from office. He knows, without question, that the passing of this law will damage the state, it will harm hundreds of thousands of citizens of that state, and he is actively choosing to work against the best interests of his citizens to force his own religious ideology.

The man is a religious fanatic. He doesn't deserve to be in the position he has. He is actively and deliberately choosing to force his religious views onto his citizens through an abuse of office, knowing it has the potential to do massive social and economic damage.

originally posted by: stolencar18

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?

Because NO CHRISTIAN is being prevented from practicing their faith, in any way whatsoever.
If your Christian faith is built on your imagined right to be a bigot toward other people - YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: stolencar18

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?

Because NO CHRISTIAN is being prevented from practicing their faith, in any way whatsoever.
If your Christian faith is built on your imagined right to be a bigot toward other people - YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN.

It is so nice how Christianity is being defined for us.

Thank you!

a reply to: Rocker2013

Religious people tend to take morals from their holy book,

If the book says it's sin punishable with death, and religious societies are build to follow this book

It's perfectly normal for the fundamentalist christian, jew or muslim to to be a bigot toward gays.

Every civilization has had different moral standards throughout history.

In ancient Greece (for ex.) it was kinda normal to be naked on public, and to have sex with the same gender and in same cases even animals. ( celebrating nature at it's highest? maybe why not!?!)

That's why all pagans were seen as satanic sinners that had to be destroyed (sodom and gomorrah) by early christians.


My input is that no christian priest or church should be forced to marry a gay couple, if it is not acceptable for them.
But if someone is gay and a christian and still wants to marry in the church, then he is just being a dumb@$$.
And the church has every right to refuse.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: stolencar18

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?

Because NO CHRISTIAN is being prevented from practicing their faith, in any way whatsoever.
If your Christian faith is built on your imagined right to be a bigot toward other people - YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN.

It is so nice how Christianity is being defined for us.

Thank you!

I bet many of us began our life as Christians and maybe even continued into adulthood.

I hate the "you wouldn't understand what it is to be Christian". Uh, yes I would.

allowing institutionalized discrimination against anyone is a slippery slope for everyone else
just ask black south africans or palistinians....christians...btw..descriminated against by a self proclaimed master race(s)(LOL)
must really suck to be either/ all the above
AND non hetero too



i grew up in the one town in Ontario where the public school board war catholic
see my siggy thread
truth was descriminated against in school as is proved there
the things PROOVED there makes any christian descriminartion against anyone a very questionable practice

We're at a crossroads in terms of equal treatment, it seems. Do we turn one direction & act like adults? in other words, do we treat people fairly, and not use a belief system as a cockamamie excuse for inequality & poor treatment? Or do we go down the opposite route, and just blatantly use religion as an excuse to do whatever we want, no matter how nasty?

If people agree with the latter, then they agree with the aspect of denying rights & services to people based on being different. I could then, theoretically, invent a religion (if Scientology can do it, anyone can) with bigoted principles, and size up multi-racial people & give them the proverbial finger. And that would be legally OK.

Now imagine that hogwash catches on like wildfire. Now we have a sub-class of mistreated multi-racial people not being treated fairly because they're of more than one race. They're a minority class being trampled on because a-holes can't be big kids about differences. This isn't fairness, this isn't justifiable, it's ignorant and ignorance is NO bliss in this era. There's zero excuse for it and everyone with a brain cell knows that.

If there are any people from Louisiana here, I suggest someone get cracking on a thinking up religious sect of something that excludes Indian people from equal rights. And make sure it's executed in such a manner than Jindal gets the idea. Sometimes people do not learn, until they get a taste of their own nasty medicine first.

a reply to: Nyiah

It is out of our hands, though.

Law makers get to determine how a religion should comport itself in public, law makers get to determine how tenets should be followed.

The state is going to determine how religion should be followed and practiced.

a reply to: beezzer

How is it out of our hands, Bunny-man?

Last I heard, they answer to us. If they don't, whose fault is it, anyway?

We need, badly, to quit thinking that these idiots in Congress operate in a vacuum. That's true only when we allow it.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: beezzer

How is it out of our hands, Bunny-man?

Last I heard, they answer to us. If they don't, whose fault is it, anyway?

We need, badly, to quit thinking that these idiots in Congress operate in a vacuum. That's true only when we allow it.

My cynicism of politics and politicians has grown.

I honestly think that "they" don't give a tinkers damn about us, about our goals, about how we want to be represented.

On this, I'd like to be proven wrong. But I doubt that I will.

a reply to: beezzer

Beez, you're multi-racial, right? Did my example not resonate with you in any manner? You're seemingly all for letting religion dictate legal treatment, so would you not be really pissed if suddenly you were being refused services or have less legal rights because of your genes? If i were to create Nyiah's Church of Purity, and decided to eschew racial mixing as a sty on any race's heritage, and thus mixed people are now lowest on the totem pole, would you not feel subjugated? Never mind that multi-racial people already go through that now to a lesser extent socially, but what if it was religiously backed, and people decided "Oh, my church says it's ok to be a royal dick, so i can!" Would that be ok?

The Church of Purity would be fine to exist, so long as it doesn't trample everyone else's rights. Having that belief system protected as business rights would not be doing any of us any favors in the long run.

a reply to: beezzer

Although I think the state should not determine how religion should be followed and practiced,

It's religion the one that always wanted to have political power and to be part of the state (with all the advantages that brings)

a reply to: beezzer

It's truly irrelevant if they don't give a *bleep*, if we give a *bleep*.

We hold the power. Or have we forgotten that?

I think we ALL as HUMANS BEING should be able to find a positive way(s) to agree to disagree on certain types of personal privacy
worship and sex between consenting adults are PERSONAL issues
not do so will likely eventually result in a state of non survival


and as to the fear of Gays and children
well
considering some of the churches scandals re homo sexuality and children...
what would Jindal do about those homsexuals?
discriminate?

N/m

a reply to: beezzer


well it does seem that it's the christian right that is trying so hard to get the separation of church and state done away with, that would be the next natural step!!
belief against birth control?? oh ya that deserves to be protected!!
belief against homosexuality, that deserves to be protected also!!
of course blood transfusions although some religions forbid, well that doesn't deserve protection.
well got to ask who has the power to decide for me just what beliefs I hold dear to my heart and what ones aren't worth anything?
whoever decides that is whom will eventually control just what any particular church in this country stands for or against!

originally posted by: stolencar18
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.

You are simply wrong. Only a few states have civil unions and NONE of them carry the same benefits as marriage.

And NOWHERE did I say your opinion isn't valid. You're making things up.

originally posted by: Nyiah
a reply to: beezzer

Beez, you're multi-racial, right? Did my example not resonate with you in any manner? You're seemingly all for letting religion dictate legal treatment, so would you not be really pissed if suddenly you were being refused services or have less legal rights because of your genes? If i were to create Nyiah's Church of Purity, and decided to eschew racial mixing as a sty on any race's heritage, and thus mixed people are now lowest on the totem pole, would you not feel subjugated? Never mind that multi-racial people already go through that now to a lesser extent socially, but what if it was religiously backed, and people decided "Oh, my church says it's ok to be a royal dick, so i can!" Would that be ok?

The Church of Purity would be fine to exist, so long as it doesn't trample everyone else's rights. Having that belief system protected as business rights would not be doing any of us any favors in the long run.

I've dealt with that tripe all my life without ONCE having to run to government to save me.

Religious folks have their rights guaranteed by the Constitution, well, they used to.
LGBT folks have their rights protected, or they should have their rights protected.

Getting government involved will end up helping some and hurting others.

Government is not the solution!

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: beezzer

It's truly irrelevant if they don't give a *bleep*, if we give a *bleep*.

We hold the power. Or have we forgotten that?

Collectively?

We have forgotten that.

originally posted by: Danbones
I think we ALL as HUMANS BEING should be able to find a positive way(s) to agree to disagree on certain types of personal privacy
worship and sex between consenting adults are PERSONAL issues
not do so will likely eventually result in a state of non survival


and as to the fear of Gays and children
well
considering some of the churches scandals re homo sexuality and children...
what would Jindal do about those homsexuals?
discriminate?

I've been saying this from the start.

Christians need to respect LGBT.
LGBT needs to respect Christians.

Government does not need to get involved.