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: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: introvert
They are not being forced to go against their beliefs.

Yes they are.

They don't HAVE to operate a business. If they do choose to run a business, they should be expected to operate in a way that serves the entire public and not just people their PRIVATE beliefs agree with.

That's not what the law says. Religious people can run a business based on religious principles. And if you force people of religious conviction to operate their business in a secular manner, then you have discriminated against them.

Religious folks and same-sex-couple folks should have equal rights. You can't step on the rights of religious folks to run their life and their business in a religious manner.

Again - I'm for marriage equality.
But you can't take away the rights of others in order to get it.



The law is wrong and, like I said, it has opened a huge can of worms.

Let's say that you're a business owner and you will not serve gays. You are protected by law because that is your religious belief and are able to do so.

Let's say that I own a business and I will not serve blacks. I am not protected by law even though it may be my religious belief.

That means that the government is allowing for you to practice your religious belief in the public sector, but I cannot.

See what I mean? These laws and ways of thinking are respecting one religion over others and that is unconstitutional.

A line MUST be drawn.




posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Religious freedom is something a PERSON exercises by going to church, praying, raising their children in the church, reading the bible, and handling snakes. It doesn't come into play in BUSINESSES.

Supreme Court says that a business can be run by religious people using their religious notions. Hobby Lobby. Chick Fil A also comes to mind.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: beezzer
So you have the right to religious freedom as long as you don't use it.


If your religious freedom told you that the abortions doctors should die, would you consider it to be "using your religious freedom" to kill one? Is that an imposition on religious freedom?


You're infringing on the rights of the abortion doctor.

No business is forcing gays not to marry. Those people who are religious and own a business just don't want to participate.



Religious freedom is something a PERSON exercises by going to church, praying, raising their children in the church, reading the bible, and handling snakes. It doesn't come into play in BUSINESSES.



So now YOU get to define religious expression?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
There should never be any protected classes.


There are many, though. YOU are in several protected classes. If we got rid of them all, then I agree. Then businesses could discriminate against men, white people, religious people, Americans, or whomever they wanted to. But as long as there ARE protected groups and most of us belong to more than one, then LGBT people should too.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Then so be it. I'm not some static, immovable object when it comes to my religious beliefs. If the law says I can't use my religious beliefs to do such and such, I have no problem complying. Especially if it is a good idea.

Though to be honest, the only way that religious freedom laws would effect me is if the government started actively discriminating against atheists and agnostics. I really don't have any sacred religious beliefs that I care about.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
The law is wrong and, like I said, it has opened a huge can of worms.

From your point of view it's wrong. But it's the law.
And it protects the religious rights of citizens.

The religious rights of citizens isn't a lesser right than the rights of same-sex couples.
We can't take away the rights of one group in order to give more rights to other groups.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

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?


There should never be any protected classes.


Well that has shown to be unacceptable. Without protected classes then bigotry runs rampant.

Do unto others ...



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Like I said earlier, you have the right to religious freedom. You DON'T have the right to use that religious freedom to discriminate against someone else.

Maybe. I"m not sure about that. Discriminatory beliefs may be protected.


They certainly weren't when Segregationists tried to use that argument to maintain Segregation.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Yep. Like I said ... tricky. How to get equal rights for same-sex couples while not removing the rights of religious people to follow and practice their religion. Everyone has to have their rights. But how to implement it without infringing upon the different groups. Hard to figure out ....



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Like I said earlier, you have the right to religious freedom. You DON'T have the right to use that religious freedom to discriminate against someone else.

Maybe. I"m not sure about that. Discriminatory beliefs may be protected.


They certainly weren't when Segregationists tried to use that argument to maintain Segregation.


Segregationists wanted themselves to be a protected class.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
You're infringing on the rights of the abortion doctor.


And these religious business owners are infringing on the rights of the LGBT community to avail themselves of public accommodations.


Those people who are religious and own a business just don't want to participate.


No one is asking them to participate. They're asking them to do what they are in contract with the state to do. Provide goods and services. That is all.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp
ya we should all be protected equally!! if someone can refuse a person birth control insurance based on their religious belief I shouldn't be forced to mow the poor little blades of grass in my lawn because I believe that I cause them pain and physical injury when I do and causing undue pain to another (be it human, animal, or plantlife) is a moral sin!!!



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

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?


There should never be any protected classes.


Well that has shown to be unacceptable. Without protected classes then bigotry runs rampant.

Do unto others ...


...isn't a law in this country. Though it would be nice if Christians actually practiced that creed instead of repeating it all the time. If that were the case, then things like "protected classes" would be unnecessary since there would be no discrimination against minority classes.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: greencmp
ya we should all be protected equally!! if someone can refuse a person birth control insurance based on their religious belief I shouldn't be forced to mow the poor little blades of grass in my lawn because I believe that I cause them pain and physical injury when I do and causing undue pain to another (be it human, animal, or plantlife) is a moral sin!!!



No one should be forced to do anything.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Like I said earlier, you have the right to religious freedom. You DON'T have the right to use that religious freedom to discriminate against someone else.

Maybe. I"m not sure about that. Discriminatory beliefs may be protected.


They certainly weren't when Segregationists tried to use that argument to maintain Segregation.


Segregationists wanted themselves to be a protected class.


Fallacious argument. There is no need to protect discriminatory beliefs.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Yep. Like I said ... tricky. How to get equal rights for same-sex couples while not removing the rights of religious people to follow and practice their religion. Everyone has to have their rights. But how to implement it without infringing upon the different groups. Hard to figure out ....


Someone is going to lose.

Simple really.

And more than likely, it'll be religious folks and religious institutions, chrches that will lose.

This will weaken the 1st Amendment and open the door for further losses of freedoms of expression.

But "yay" gays will be able to buy their cakes!



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

but I am sure you do have beliefs surrounding morality and what is right and wrong....
shouldn't those beliefs be equally protected?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

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?


There should never be any protected classes.


Well that has shown to be unacceptable. Without protected classes then bigotry runs rampant.

Do unto others ...


...isn't a law in this country. Though it would be nice if Christians actually practiced that creed instead of repeating it all the time. If that were the case, then things like "protected classes" would be unnecessary since there would be no discrimination against minority classes.

You must've missed my short story earlier in this thread.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Like I said earlier, you have the right to religious freedom. You DON'T have the right to use that religious freedom to discriminate against someone else.

Maybe. I"m not sure about that. Discriminatory beliefs may be protected.


They certainly weren't when Segregationists tried to use that argument to maintain Segregation.


Segregationists wanted themselves to be a protected class.


Fallacious argument. There is no need to protect discriminatory beliefs.


In what way is using law to prefer oneself not discriminatory?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Because it is using the law to elevate yourself above others. Which is called inequality, something this country is supposed to be against.




top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join