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: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

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.



But that's just it....they are not public accommodations....they are private businesses.

Yes...they ARE asking them to directly participate, how are they not?




posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.


So, you want to use law to do that very thing.

How can you not see the problem with that?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
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?



They are equally protected. In fact, my beliefs are one of the most protected beliefs in the country. I'm a white male. My demographic has pretty much been catered to in this country for 200+ years. The only way I could be MORE catered to is if I were a Protestant.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
There is no need to protect discriminatory beliefs.

And yet passing laws forcing religious people to go against their beliefs would be discriminatory against those religious people.



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

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
How to get equal rights for same-sex couples while not removing the rights of religious people to follow and practice their religion.


How is denying service to someone a religious practice? Where, in their religious books does it say to shun or deny service to people who don't share their beliefs?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

If they are open to the general public, they are considered public accommodation. Unlike a private organization like a church or a private club like Boy Scouts or a golf club, where you apply for membership.



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

Sorry. It's a fast moving thread. I posted on page 1 like an hour ago, came back after a short period and it was already several pages in.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

maybe some of us aren't all gun hoe against gays but well we have other beliefs that we cling to...
with me it's lying, paying taxes for crap that is detrimental to most of the citizens in the country, ect. we have to just grin and bare it when we are forced to do what we believe is wrong...
why should a few beliefs that we really don't see as a big deal be exalted above our own which we see as doing more damage to this country?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.


So, you want to use law to do that very thing.

How can you not see the problem with that?


How is making sure that a minority class has equal rights elevating a class above another class?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan
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.


You're right. The Supreme Court did that. And I said at the time that it was only the beginning of religious domination in this country. And I was right.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

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.



You're missing the point.

If someone's religious belief mandates that they cannot serve blacks, their religious rights are not protected under current law. That means that the US government has respected Christianity over other religions.

That is unconstitutional.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: greencmp

maybe some of us aren't all gun hoe against gays but well we have other beliefs that we cling to...
with me it's lying, paying taxes for crap that is detrimental to most of the citizens in the country, ect. we have to just grin and bare it when we are forced to do what we believe is wrong...
why should a few beliefs that we really don't see as a big deal be exalted above our own which we see as doing more damage to this country?



Lying is a great example.

I think everybody agrees that lying is distasteful and to be admonished.

Should it be illegal? Should the state use the threat of violence to correct it?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
How to get equal rights for same-sex couples while not removing the rights of religious people to follow and practice their religion.

How is denying service to someone a religious practice? Where, in their religious books does it say to shun or deny service to people who don't share their beliefs?


I could quote you Catholic catechism that states that it is considered a mortal sin for Catholics to participate, or encourage participation, in homosexuality or abortion or birth control, etc etc. To even encourage participation in what is considered a sin is to sin and is against Catholic teaching.

For a Catholic to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding would be considered encouraging the 'sin' and therefore would be against the religion. For a Catholic to provide birth control to someone would be considered encouraging the 'sin' and therefore would be against the religion. Etc.

You'd have to get a protestant theologian in here, and a Jewish rabbi, and a Muslim Imam to answer for those folks. I just know the Catholic law. It is indeed against their religion to encourage participation in same sex marriage.

** most Catholics I know ignore the law and are fine with same sex marriage and birth control. I'm just answering the question BH asked - 'where does it say in religious books ... "

Catechism of the Catholic Church



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.


So, you want to use law to do that very thing.

How can you not see the problem with that?


How is making sure that a minority class has equal rights elevating a class above another class?


First of all, you are saying that minorities belong to a different class than other people, I disagree.

How can equality be dictated in the first place much less by "elevating" a "class"?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
But that's just it....they are not public accommodations....they are private businesses.


WHO is not a public accommodation?



Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions were exempt.


Source


Yes...they ARE asking them to directly participate, how are they not?


I'm sorry, that's a stupid question. They are not invited to the wedding. They are not going to be there. They are providing goods to a customer. Period. What that customer does with the goods is not their concern.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
There is no need to protect discriminatory beliefs.

And yet passing laws forcing religious people to go against their beliefs would be discriminatory against those religious people.


How? Is anyone forcing you to stop hating gay people? No. They are just making sure that you serve them in any business you happen to own. Do you feel religiously discriminated against for serving black people at a business? Because Christians made the same argument you are making today about black people.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
And I said at the time that it was only the beginning of religious domination in this country. And I was right.

Honestly I think the tide is going in the opposite direction and the motion will favor marriage equality across the country. that could be wishful thinking on my part, but we'll see ...



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The Hobby Lobby thing is about not spending money on something against your religious beliefs. That's different than not providing the same goods and services to one group that you provide to everyone else. That is clearly discrimination, any way you look at it.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

no but I am pretty sure that there are plenty of employees out there who have bosses that want them to lie quite often and well use the fear of loss of income to get their way!!

and well yes it should be illegal for any politician running for office to lie to the voters!! if caught they should be forced to resign and never be allowed to run for public office again!



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
How is making sure that a minority class has equal rights elevating a class above another class?

If you take away the right of the religious person to run their life and their business according to their religious beliefs, then you have elevated the rights of others above the rights of the religious person to follow their religion.




top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join