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: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

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

The current tax laws would prevent this. I remember a deacon trying to claim the formal dining room furniture he was buying was a church purchase. He was not the pastor nor was the furniture for the parsonage. When I questioned where the furniture was going to be used he had to be up front. I had to ask based on tax exemption laws. All businesses would claim religious status if they could to avoid taxes.




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

No, it's about views on marriage only. That's how we know it's targeting gay people.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

It should not be debatable.

If we allow people to discriminate against others in the marketplace for religious reasons, we open up a huge can of worms that will be a huge detriment to US society.

What if someone said that their religion will not allow them to serve black people? Will that be acceptable?

Where do we draw the line?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

So you believe that people within the LGBT community should have more rights as a protected status, than the rest of us?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Conveniently skipped over the part where I said flowers don't typically come from the actual flower shop....they order them.


I skipped it because it's irrelevant. Read this post :www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: Vasa Croe

The current tax laws would prevent this. I remember a deacon trying to claim the formal dining room furniture he was buying was a church purchase. He was not the pastor nor was the furniture for the parsonage. When I questioned where the furniture was going to be used he had to be up front. I had to ask based on tax exemption laws. All businesses would claim religious status if they could to avoid taxes.


Right.....this is where I see the change happening. Separating a "(Insert religion) owned business" from a (Insert place of worship), specifically for the tax reasons. This would allow the business to be registered as such without having a tax break and allowing them to refuse business to patron based on religious belief....would work across the board for all businesses owned by whatever religious affiliation owner.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
So you believe that people within the LGBT community should have more rights as a protected status, than the rest of us?


Oh, God, Beez... You know how I feel. NO, the LGBT community should NOT have more rights than the rest of us. They should have EQUAL rights.

If you have a question and want to ask it, please make a case. Tell me WTF you're talking about and I'll answer.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: FlyersFan
What if someone said that their religion will not allow them to serve black people? Will that be acceptable?


There is no what if here. They used to do JUST that. USING RELIGION TO DISCRIMINATE


Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion aren’t new. In the 1960s, we saw institutions object to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today.


This needs to be repeated over and over again until the religious right get it through their thick heads:

Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.

edit on 20-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
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.

They are allowed. Freedom of religion. Freedom of speech.
(no matter how pathetic or disgusting their stand may be).


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.

They use their state protected (not sponsored) freedom of religion to show piety. It doesn't give their religious opinion weight, it just gives them the right to have it.

A secular nation is a secular rule of law (which I LOVE!). It doesn't mean that the secular rule of law wipes out religious rights. A secular rule of law actually protects peoples rights to religious freedom. (again, no matter how silly we find the religious beliefs to be).

The law protects the right of Westboro Baptist to spew their garbage. That's not the government sponsoring them and it's not the government giving weight to their religious opinion. It's just protection for them to exercise their right to be disgusting.


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.

Sorry. Not seeing that at all. That's like saying my neighbor pays taxes so I should have a right to walk through their house. Paying taxes doesn't trump a persons constitutional rights.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: beezzer
So you believe that people within the LGBT community should have more rights as a protected status, than the rest of us?


Oh, God, Beez... You know how I feel. NO, the LGBT community should NOT have more rights than the rest of us. They should have EQUAL rights.

If you have a question and want to ask it, please make a case. Tell me WTF you're talking about and I'll answer.


You wanted to grant them"protected status".

Why should they be granted that?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Conveniently skipped over the part where I said flowers don't typically come from the actual flower shop....they order them.


I skipped it because it's irrelevant. Read this post :www.abovetopsecret.com...



I get what you are saying there, but I don't recall a business using "no service for gays" as a selling point. I DO recall plenty of the gay community bringing it to major public eye when they are refused business though....I have never seen a case of "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."

I have seen them refuse service, but only because it was brought to the media by the person they refused service to, not by the business itself.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   
That's protected across the board not one protected more than another



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

Right. It has. Which I guess is why he went with "Executive Order" instead of a bill.
The new battle cry of upper level government is "My way or the highway".



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I missed that too and that is some good news. Unfortunately, Obama's EO's only extend to federal employees and federal contractors. He doesn't have the power to make that effective across the board (despite what the right will have you believe about Obama and his EO's).
edit on 20-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: dawnstar

No, it's about views on marriage only. That's how we know it's targeting gay people.


I don't know about that. Really long story I'll try to make it short.

My wife and I were told no by a lot of Men of the Cloth. I'm spiritual ... she's Buddhist. We were trying to arrange for a marriage on a military installation and got told "No." at least a half-dozen times. I was quite surprised and mostly amused. We finally found a preacher who just didn't care. The End

Fact is there are many houses of worship who will not recognize a couple's desire to be wed ... unless you're a member (which we were not). So ... targeting gay people isn't the only reason all the time.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: damwel
That's protected across the board not one protected more than another


You'll have to dumb it down for me, I'm thick.

So granting people in the LGBT community "protective status" isn't granting them any additional protections or rights?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe


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.


Interesting.

How about a bakery with a policy against making cakes that might be used in a same sex wedding reception and an employee, guided by his own moral convictions, who goes against policy and knowingly makes a cake for the same sex wedding reception and is fired?

The law seems pretty well tailored to protect a business owner's ability to make discriminatory policies, period. Churches and religious organizations already have ample protection under existing laws and the protections of the proposed law aren't applicable to the circumstances of most individuals.


edit on 2015-5-20 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
You wanted to grant them"protected status".

Why should they be granted that?


I want them granted equality. Protection from discrimination. Straight people as well as LGBT people should be protected from discrimination. People of all races, religion, genders, citizenship, etc.

YOU are a protected class, beez. Your gender, your race, your religion, your nationality... ALL protected. Your sexual orientation is not.

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



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
It's about the government not being able to step in and rectify discrimination in businesses.

I went and looked at the words spoken by Jindal and I'm not seeing that this is intended just for business. (I don't doubt you ... I'm just not seeing it). Can we get the wording of the expected executive order so we can take a look? It would be helpful. Is it out yet??

ETA ... I'm finding only this -


'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.

Looks like the Holly Hobby thing ... a religious family owned business, the family shouldn't be forced to go against their faith in their faith based business??? The law is to protect the religious based business owners from being forced to go against their faith.

Like having a Muslim based business wouldn't have to sell alcohol, or Jewish faithed business (like a kosher deli) wouldn't have to serve bacon.


For your last paragraph, a Muslim based business can choose not to stock alcohol if they so wished, just as a Jewish based shop can choose not to stock bacon. What they choose to stock doesn't break any rules and as far as I know, never will, but if they did stock a particular item and choose not to serve said item for any reason that could be considered discriminatory then that's where the problems start.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
It should not be debatable.

But it is. Religious rights are protected. Forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs is an infringement upon their constitutionally protected rights.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join