Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

a reply to: dragonridr

What do you mean "now I'm getting it"??? My position hasn't changed on this issue. This is what I've been saying forever when this topic comes up.

Nobody is forcing a Religious Person or Organization to Marry someone they don't want to. One church may be against it and a church across the street may be for it. The church that is against it, doesn't have to do it. The church that is for it can do it all they want. That's up to the church. Some churches won't marry you if you've been divorced, or if you're not the same religion, or if you're interracial. Nobody is telling them they have to change that either.

Legally however, if it's not against the law the church doesn't have the power to change it. If you're allowed to marry legally, then you can marry legally.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Romans chapter 1 verses 26 through 32. This is just one of many reasons why
christians can not accept homosexuality.The Bible says that that lifestyle is a
sin.Christians should love the homosexuals but never approve of their lifestyle
choices.

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Rocker2013

Romans chapter 1 verses 26 through 32. This is just one of many reasons why
christians can not accept homosexuality.The Bible says that that lifestyle is a
sin.Christians should love the homosexuals but never approve of their lifestyle
choices.

They don't have to approve of it. Nobody is asking for their approval of it. Let them disapprove all they want, but legally they can't stop it if it doesn't involve them.

I'm sure they don't approve of me having sex while not being married. Let them disapprove all they want, because legally they can't stop it since it doesn't involve them.

a reply to: Dr1Akula

Christianity did not exist during the time of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
God destroyed those two cities if you have a problem with that take it up with Him!
Sex with animals is also a big no no!

a reply to: mamabeth

it also gives many stories where jesus healed the sinners!!
and associated with them...
sorry I don't see where providing services to sinners as approving of the sin, not really...
especially when one of those upstanding christians refused to officiate the funural service for someone after agreeing to 24 hours before the service because he realized (heard through the grapevine) that the guy was gay.
that is just bigoted cruelity!

Poor Bobby Jindal he's still under the delusion that he will eventually be president.What he doesn't realize is the GOP base barely tolerates him as governor of LA they will not be able to stomach him running for president.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: mamabeth

it also gives many stories where jesus healed the sinners!!
and associated with them...
sorry I don't see where providing services to sinners as approving of the sin, not really...
especially when one of those upstanding christians refused to officiate the funural service for someone after agreeing to 24 hours before the service because he realized (heard through the grapevine) that the guy was gay.
that is just bigoted cruelity!

Well I think in this case a Christian helping with the wedding is helping them to commit a sin. THey Believe they are helping condemn someone to hell. So they believe it's wrong to help someone comit sin.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It doesn't really bother me at all really for a few reasons:

One- this doesn't apply to me as I am not near Louisiana, nor should I care...until Mardi Gras.

Two- Citizens and non-citizens should take Bobby Jindal and his ideas with a grain of salt. The man is literally Uncle Ruckus in real life. (Uncle Ruckus is a popular character from the animated show The Boondocks. He is a middleaged black man who is a conservative Republican and is racist towards other blacks. He also believes he was born white, but stricken with 'reverse vitiligo' and that Ronald Reagan will turn him into a white man, whereas Jindal is almost the same except ethnicity).

Three- Why does this need to be law? We saw the debacle in Indiana, and look how that turned out. If only people were reasonable, and won't make a stink about wedding preferences that would lead to such stupid laws.
Alas, it is easier said than done.

Toast out.

-goes back to reading the Escape From New York novelization-

originally posted by: dragonridr

Well I think in this case a Christian helping with the wedding is helping them to commit a sin. THey Believe they are helping condemn someone to hell. So they believe it's wrong to help someone comit sin.

Why is it not ok to discriminate against another color/ethnicity a biblical verse states is beneath you, but telling gay people to hoof it is? If someone today said "No blacks allowed", they'd be crucified (figuratively speaking) But gay people are ok to rag on & treat like crap? In either case, neither customer is telling you what to do in your home, in the pews, they're just customers.

Screw it. You people are so backwards it's not even mildly humorous. If my mothers-in-law were black & faced this crap, it would be hell to pay. but they're just lowly lesbians, to hell with their rights, they're not even real people anyway. Skin color matters more than anything else for having rights, I guess. Seconded only by having a vagina. THOSE are the only rights that matter today.

a reply to: dragonridr

Well I think in this case a Christian helping with the wedding is helping them to commit a sin. THey Believe they are helping condemn someone to hell. So they believe it's wrong to help someone comit sin.

That's fine. They don't have to help with any wedding. Problem solved.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Ask? Simply asking if they are ok with providing flowers for a same sex wedding? Or the wedding planner could ask, or may already know?

So, while everyone else walks in to a place of public accommodation and orders whatever they want, fully expecting to be accommodated, gay people are supposed to be reduced to "asking" if they can patronize the business?

There is always another business out there that is more than willing to do business with you.

No, there isn't. Not everyone lives in a city with more flower shops to choose from.

Conveniently skipped over the part where I said flowers don't typically come from the actual flower shop....they order them.

And no...they don't have to ask.....you asked how they would know if they didn't serve gays and I gave an answer. Just like a Jewish person may only want to work with a Jewish flower shop (if there is such a thing) they would likely have to ask, or if they walk into a deli and have to ask if it is Kosher.....should it all just be kosher?

I have an issue with forcing a privately owned business to do anything against the owners wishes. The burden of finding a business to work with is on the patron, not the other way around.

I look at this as a great way to capitalize on the issue....open up gay friendly shops everywhere and advertise it as such far and wide.

I have no issue with same sex couples at all...I have a couple of them in my family and we all do huge family vacations together every year, sometimes twice a year. They are my favorite cousins in the family.

Ok, think of it this way. Your out with your family for a big family dinner, and your favorite gay cousins are with the group. Your seated for dinner and everyone is having a great time. The staff maybe notices your gay cousins kiss or holding hands. Or perhaps they look gay. The restaurant says we will serve everyone but them, they have to leave. Or they say you all have to leave. We don't serve those dirty, evil gay people here or those that associate with them. How does that make you feel? How do you think it makes your cousins feel? Lets then human, that's how. Should they have to hide their true selves and love for each just so they can eat, shop or work at a business? And before you say yes or "we would all just get up an go somewhere else". What if there wasn't anywhere else to go? And how would you feel if you had to constantly hide who you really were?

a reply to: mOjOm

When people try to pass laws that force others to conform to their
way of thinking is not right. I don't care what you or anyone else does
in your private life.It is none of my business and I won't lose any sleep
over it either.

a reply to: dragonridr

Bingo,we have a winner here! Thank-you for your post.

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.

The people that are pushing this are not interested in that right. They are interested in an agenda and pushing that agenda to the max.

That is the main issue I have on this. I could care less about how a person lives or wo they sleep with, but don't force it on others.

I don't think it's discrimination to refuse to be a part of something you don't agree with. After all haven't we been forced to stop many thing because it "offended" someone? (ie public praying, pledge of allegiance, nativity sets...) Isn't that discrimination against the people that believe in them?

I would completely support the idea of a store that posted a sign saying the owners did not serve XXX. It is a private store and they have the right to serve whoever they want. JUST like we have the right not to shop there. The idea of non discriminate is that the GOVERNMENT can't do it, or any one taking government funds, or a public organization. Private people and businesses should be able to choose. Even companies should be able to choose based on what their stockholders wish.

If the public does not like the chose of a business they just don't use them. Over time that business would change it rules or go away.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
What I don't get is forcing those that are not in favor due to religious beliefs, being forced to marry same sex couples.

This is absolutely NOT about forcing anyone to marry anyone. It's about the government not being able to step in and rectify discrimination in businesses.

Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal on Tuesday (19 May) issued an executive order allowing businesses to turn away LGBTI customers, two hours after a House panel rejected a 'religious freedom' bill.

'I’m issuing an Executive Order to prevent the state from discriminating against people, charities and family-owned businesses with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman,' the Republican said. - See more at: www.gaystarnews.com...

Your right.

The idea was that GOVERNMENT could not discriminate. Private Business and people should be allowed all day, And we can CHOOSE not to use their service business if we don't like it. If they have the support of the people they will keep open, if not...

originally posted by: dismanrc
The people that are pushing this are not interested in that right. They are interested in an agenda and pushing that agenda to the max.

That is the main issue I have on this.

So, you've manufactured the idea that gay people don't REALLY want to be married, they're messing with people for the fun of it... And that's your major issue... Something that isn't even true.

I would completely support the idea of a store that posted a sign saying the owners did not serve XXX. It is a private store and they have the right to serve whoever they want.

A store is not private! It's a public accommodation, with the public freely going in and out of it... Another "fact" you've made up.

It's amazing the lengths people will go to to create a fantasy so they can deny equal rights to other people! Amazing!

a reply to: dismanrc

You don't even understand the sentence you quoted...

originally posted by: dragonridr
Well I think in this case a Christian helping with the wedding is helping them to commit a sin. THey Believe they are helping condemn someone to hell. So they believe it's wrong to help someone comit sin.

Fine. They should get out of the wedding business then. No one is forcing them to own a business that serves the public (of which gay people are a part).

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: FlyersFan

I wouldn't either, but that's not the point. State-sanctioned discrimination is the point.

This issue isn't about forcing a specific business to make a cake for gay people. It's more about business owners USING their businesses to show public disapproval of a group of people by trying to shame them with righteous judgment as unworthy of the same rights as the rest of us.

A business owner has a certain "standing" in a community. They are in contract with the state, and therefore have to follow state laws in doing business with the public. It's part of living in civilized society. If they USE their state-sponsored standing to show conspicuous piety, it gives their religious opinion a certain "weight" that it shouldn't have in a secular nation.

Also, everyone pays the taxes that pay for a business's police and fire services, road systems, utility lines, and sewers. That's why it's a "public accommodation". We ALL should have equal access to it and the products and services they offer.

I disagree completely with this line of thought. NO private business is is contracted with the state or state-sponsored unless they have an actual contract to provide service to the state. In that case I fully agree with you, if they take money from the state as part of their job they need to follow all the rules. If they just have a business license and tax id. that's another point altogether.

The idea is that GOVERNMENT can't discriminate not a private business or person.

As far as the tax issue goes with police and fire. wrong again. Just because they get public service does not mean they are public accommodations. They pay their own taxes to cover this. Try getting into a "private" club that has all these services, you won't get though the door. Every building in the US uses local fire,police and utilities unless it was designed to stand alone. (Even government building use these, try to get into one of those.)

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
When is the federal government going to admit LGBT's as a protected class so nonsense like this is forced to stop?

As soon as they admit white straight male Christians as one.