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: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
My question is still, why would a gay man/woman/couple even WANT to frequent a business that doesn't want them there?


If you're getting married and want flowers, how do you know which flower shops are open to providing flowers for your wedding? I'm sure they don't WANT to frequent a business that doesn't want their money, but how do they know?

A "No Gays" sign in the window?



Either way, unless they are walking in announcing they are gay when they open the door, how would the business know?


Maybe the couple goes in together to order flowers for their wedding.



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?

Other than that, it doesn't seem that complicated to me at all, yet everyone seems to be out to complicate it. Most of the time, at least for weddings, the flower shop itself is not even providing the flowers, it is whomever they are ordering the flowers from (I know this from my 2 weddings).

There is always another business out there that is more than willing to do business with you. I question the motives of the ones that force a business to do business just to prove a point.




posted on May, 20 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It was a rhetorical question, hence the first line of the second to last paragraph



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
But it ALSO protects ALL businesses with "a religious beliefs about marriage"...


Ahhh good! You found the text.


That's what you'd expect .. a business with religious beliefs like Hobby Lobby.
Family owned and conservative Christian themed.

Some more from the text -


Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a facially neutral rule or a rule of general applicability, unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both:

(1) In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
(2) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.


I'm no lawyer but did that say that the person/corporation can fully exercise their freedom of religion UNLESS the government thinks it's in the governments best interest not to?? Or am I reading that wrong??


it is of preeminent importance that government take no adverse action against a person, wholly or partially, on the basis that such person acts in accordance with his religious belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, but that this principle not be construed to authorize any act of discrimination.

If a person doesn't believe that a same sex union is valid and doesn't want to recognize it, then by law they don't have to. That's what I'm reading there. Yes??



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I wondered about that! LOL! Sorry, I am trying to keep up...



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I see a law like this making a loophole for Christian business owners being able to file their business as a Christian business solely for this reason......


That's possible. But a business wouldn't have to be a religious business to discriminate. As long as the PERSON you talk to has religious objections to marriage equality, they can refuse customers and not be held accountable for it.


I would think that would solely depend on the policies a business has in place.....an employee making a decision for a business that is not policy is typically a firing offense. The employee has no right to make that decision for a business. If they did and it was against company policy and the owner found out about it and rectified it, then there is no issue.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

If I were a same sex couple, I wouldn't want any part of having my cake or flowers done at a business that has to be forced to do the job. You just know the business would purposely screw it up and then play innocent. And the chef would probably spit in the cake batter. Ya' know? I wouldn't trust them.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   

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



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
When I first read that all I could do is shake my head and here is why:

What Gov. Jindell did in short was like the pot calling the kettle black. On one hand he complained about Obama and the use of Executive orders, and then turns around and does the exact same thing. And he completely ignored what all is going on around the country, currently and the results of things like this.

Now Louisiana is not a rich state. It has a long history and one that is not so pleasant. If you travel to the gulf coast, the scars of Hurricane Katrina are still present and it is just now starting to come back from the BP oil disaster that made a large economic impact on the state. Any sort of economic hiccup could be far worse and the rippling effects be bad as well.
Now here comes Gov. Jindell, even after the legislature did not pass the bill he wanted, cause they can see the impact it will have, decided to play Russian roulette and thinks it is a good thing. The reality is that with money you do not gamble unless you know you have all of the aces. In this case the state has far more to lose than gain and it is going to take a hit like Indiana did. What does anyone really think is going to happen to the state once businesses pull out? There goes employment and there goes the economy. The state is going to take a hit and like so many other states that are trying to deal with the economy and social issues, doing something that will cause tech companies to pull away is not a good thing. If anything it is like playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun. I can see his poll numbers start to drop and do not think that he will win the nomination for President. His political career may not survive this, like Mike Pence, or Gov. Christie who is going to learn real quick that their actions have a far greater impact in the opinion of the nation.

What this man has done is gambled millions of dollars from the state of Louisiana and its tax paying citizens There is a good chance that his actions will be challenged in court and argued up to the federal level and the US Supreme court. In that aspect, if he loses, the state will lose and it will affect all of the country, and all of those conservatives who think that they should have the right to discriminate against the LGBT community or argue that they have the right not to service people that is not of their faith. And like a bad hunter, they keep missing the target and make unwise and poor choices and decisions.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Vasa Croe


My question is still, why would a gay man/woman/couple even WANT to frequent a business that doesn't want them there


Why do you think that is a relevant question? I wonder if in the 60's there were a lot of segregationists saying, "why would a black even WANT to frequent a business that doesn't want them there?"


Either way, unless they are walking in announcing they are gay when they open the door, how would the business know?


How is this a relevant question either? Civil rights shouldn't be dependent on an individual's ability to disguise themselves. Let me give an analogy that might resonate better with a conservative:

It would be like saying you have a right to possess a gun as long as the government doesn't know about it.


I think it is relevant because it has happened to me. I have tattoos all over and work in an executive role and have had more sideways looks than I can count. I have lost business because of them and have walked out of businesses because of the comments I got from having them. I would not do business with anyone so close minded they think tattoos make me a thug or a bad person in some way. I can't blame them, but I can say that there are plenty of other companies out there that DON'T care and that I do business with all the time.

I am not in any way saying for them to disguise themselves. I am asking how would a business know unless they announced it or saw the couple together in some fashion that made them know they were a couple? Like I said, I have tattoos all over. If I really want to do business with a certain company, I will wear long sleeve shirts when I go there. It is not a big deal for me to keep that part of my life out of the equation.....not everyone I know, knows I have them and that is fine with me....if I wanted them to know I would show them.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

Not offering bacon or alcohol at your business based on religious belief is not the same as refusing to serve someone based on their personal sexual preference.

Our religious freedoms are protected by the constitution, but that protection ends when it steps on the rights of others to not be discriminated against.

We must remember that religion, much like sexual preference, is a personal choice. You have the right to believe what you want but if you want to run a business, it must serve all of the public and not just those that conflict with your private personal beliefs.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
My question is still, why would a gay man/woman/couple even WANT to frequent a business that doesn't want them there?

Which leads me to the question, "How would they know they're not welcome?"

Place a crucifix above the threshold of every door? Or the Star of David? Or the Star and Crescent?

I see 'division by choice' coming down the pike. Or not.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

That says people, charities or family owned businesses with deeply held beliefs it doesn't say religious businesses. Businesses don't have religious beliefs people do. This refers to businesses owned by families with deeply held beliefs. So if ma and pa Kettle don't agree with your lifestyle based on their own deeply held religious beliefs they don't have to serve you. They could run a news stand it wouldn't matter what the business is.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
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.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
When is the federal government going to admit LGBT's as a protected class so nonsense like this is forced to stop?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
You have the right to believe what you want but if you want to run a business, it must serve all of the public and not just those that conflict with your private personal beliefs.

That's debatable. People have a right to their religious beliefs and a right not to have them infringed upon. They have a right to run their own business based on their religious beliefs (no matter if we find them absurd or not). The Hobby Lobby ruling is an example.

I'm for marriage equality. It's coming. Thankfully I think there is no stopping it.

But I"m also for freedom for people to practice their religion, and that includes running their privately owned or family business according to their religious beliefs.

It's tricky. Both have to be protected. One can't be sacrificed for the other.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl




"How would they know they're not welcome?"


This is a very important part of the issue. We could see signs in windows that say "no gays"....or something of that nature if the religious lobby and politicians have their way.

Reminds me of the days when business' had "no negros" signs in their windows.

We may be headed back there if we are not careful.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Could it possibly effect more than just the gay community? I know that is what is claimed to be the target but still. What if the person has other religious issues that he wants to deal with? Could he refuse to serve women because well...he views them as possibly unclean? Or is that too far out there? Who gets to decide what is too far out there and what isn't??

Personally, if they ever adopt these stupid laws in my area I plan on making it my full time voluteer job to start calling businesses asking for permission to visit them just to make sure I will be served! And well try to get as many others as I can doing the same thing. I mean who knows I could be walking miles just to visit their store and take advantage of that advertised sale and well you don't think that it would be extremely burdensome to me to get there just to find out that they are refusing to serve me because I don't have written permission to buy said item from my male guardian!!!

This is getting so outrageously offensive! The religions are filled with a ton of ways for one to discriminate against just about anyone they want if one want to look.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   

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.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
That says people, charities or family owned businesses with deeply held beliefs it doesn't say religious businesses.

Like Hobby Lobby. Already ruled on.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Soon, hopefully. This happened and I totally missed it. This is for employment, not public accommodation. Maybe that's next.



Washington, D.C.—An executive order by the Obama Administration is finally extending workplace discrimination protections to lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender (LGBT) employees by prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against them because of their relationships or how they identify themselves. The bill took effect on April 8, 2015, reports San Francisco employment lawyer Eric Grover of the Keller Grover law firm.


Source




top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join