Florida’s New Anti-Gay, Anti-Woman Bill May Be the Most Malicious Yet

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Racism and discrimination is real, very much alive and well thriving in America as you can see for the bill in Florida, people just doesn't get it, Krazysh0t, we already have laws to fight the same crap that the politicians in Florida are trying to pass.

I guess they know it, because is beyond me that they can be that stupid, this is all about trying to make the religious rights happy with a gesture of working in their favor for political gain.

originally posted by: marg6043


I guess they know it, because is beyond me that they can be that stupid, this is all about trying to make the religious rights happy with a gesture of working in their favor for political gain.

How can the conservative GOP be so stupid as to give the Democrats talking points; pointing out the Republican racism, homophobia and judgmental mind set in a state like Florida. It's as if they want to lose elections given the electorate makeup of Blacks, Hispanics, other minorities and gays.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes, the words judgement and ridicule are two different words. Are you now accusing someone of ridiculing Christians?

"Over-use" implies, again, that you are some sort of authority ... 1) who do you think recognizes your authority and 2) how does your interpretation of what some other poster's ... what, tone? ... matter at all to the subject at hand?

So now it's a joke? Or it's not ... a meritorious joke ... your perception of your own statements seem to be in flux here.

No one has to prove that there is a direct reference to "anti-gay" or "anti-woman" in the bill to know that 1) it's unconstitutional both from the State and Federal perspectives and 2) this type of legislation reflects a recognizable, nationwide trend to allow folks to discriminate unfairly against their fellow citizens. There is no need for a "pro-religion" bill ... the Constitution not to mention the RFRA laws have done more than enough.

Why do religious people deserve so much special attention? Why do they need a class of special rights?

a reply to: grandmakdw

And discrimination/segregation does all those things..you say people are twisting your word when you yourself know not what they mean.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

First of all, no one is telling you that you can't express your opinion. Disagreeing with your opinion, or pointing out facts that contradict your opinion, is not an attempt to shut you down.

Second of all, public and private mean different things here. A company can be privately owned (rather than publicly traded as in the stock market) and still be holding out to do business with the general PUBLIC and thus are subject to the laws and legal traditions regarding public accommodation. These [ed] laws are as much a part of the English Common Law heritage as the right to bear arms that you seem to be so committed to.

Third, a business owner does have the right to refuse service under certain conditions: the presence of a customer is a danger to public health, the customer is causing a disruption in business that results in a loss to the owner, etc., as long as they are not denying service because of what a person is merely what they are doing (or not doing).

Telling you that you can't bring a firearm into their place of business falls within the former category.

This country is over and done with. I'm going to go ahead and call it, because the two sides are soooo far apart they can't even understand the other at this point. These laws have nothing to do with allowing discrimination, they see it as these groups trampling on their religious rights, and the other side doesn't even have the ability to understand it. WE might as well split this country in two already and be done with it, please.

originally posted by: EverydayInVA
This country is over and done with. I'm going to go ahead and call it, because the two sides are soooo far apart they can't even understand the other at this point. These laws have nothing to do with allowing discrimination, they see it as these groups trampling on their religious rights, and the other side doesn't even have the ability to understand it. WE might as well split this country in two already and be done with it, please.

We can still save it.

Before I started my business, I worked in a big corporate office full of hundreds of people. They were black and white and asian and hispanic. They were straight and gay. They were republicans and democrats and indepentants. They voted for Romney and they voted for Obama. They were Christians and Atheists and Spriitual folks. They were women and men, feminists and mysgonists. Old and young.

And Guess what? We all worked together. Not of that crap ever came up. It's all a media creation and a pundit creation. They keep giving us this and dividing us and we keep eating it up.

Real world doesn't work like this. There's hope. If only just turned off the TV and the Radio and stopped passing on stupid political memes and cartoons and pictures on facebook. We'd all be okay.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: chuck258

Taking your business to a different bakery is one thing. What are your thoughts regarding denying adoption? Or denying MEDICAL TREATMENT based on religious based bias?

Unless I misread, the law only affects private adoption agencies. So they are still a business (even if it is a non-profit). To me, it is the lesser of two evils to have a Church run Orphanage adopt out only to Heterosexual Married Couples and take some burden off the state than to not exempt them, and force them (because of their religious beliefs) to close. This happened in Chicago: articles.chicagotribune.com... ion

Just like that, 350 orphaned children were dropped in the states lap, and 60 people were put out of work, because no one wanted to bend and grant a simple religious exemption. The average cost to keep a child in an orphanage per year is 27,000, because no one wanted to grant a religious exemption for a good thing. Thats $10 million dollars it cost the state, when, in the care of the church, they were saving half that. It's not as if these Christian Charities are the only ones adopting out, the state has it's own orphanages that homosexual couples could go to if they really wanted to adopt a child for the right reasons.


As for the medical issue, something tells me it would still be a crime if a private clinic turned away an emergency situation claiming religious reasons. It is illegal for emergency hospitals to turn away people in need of care for any reason. More on that, if they have the capabilities and capacities for emergency treatment, I don't think they are absolved of their emergency treatment obligations. I think the medical portion of this bill may relate to hospitals providing faith based healing and of course abortion. Again, in all but medical emergencies, abortions are elective procedures. If you go to a hospital and demand an abortion and they deny it, chances are they don't have the capacities for an abortion ANYWAY. And, even if they did, as I said, it is always (and also once again, in non-emergencies) an ELECTIVE procedure. Medically speaking, the abortion is not necessary. That's like going to a Transmission Repair Shop, and telling them to tune up your engine. Are they similar? Yes, Are an Engine and Transmission Linked? Yes ; But are they the same thing? No, chances are they don't have spark plugs, the right type of engine oil, or anything to clean your fuel injectors out with. Hopefully that makes sense.

Those are my feelings on the issues. Again, and I know krazyshot is trying to deride my statement by claiming I am doing a cop out, but I'm not homophobic, I don't care if 2 dudes or 2 chicks want to get married, and I'm also Pro-Choice. However, just as I am all for the rights of Homosexuals and Women's reproductive rights, I am also for the rights of Religious people. Everyone always jumps on the "Christians make up the majority of people, blah blah blah" but guess what? The average Christian has no more power in society because of that religious affiliation than you do without it. Christians aren't granted special privileges because of their faith. When you force a Christian Baker (or hell, even a devout Muslim or devout Jew) to bake a cake for something they strongly oppose, you are not fighting against the all powerful Christian Church, you sicking the government on someone in society who has the exact same standing as you, and it needs to be called out. People are just trying to live their lives, and to some of them, their belief in a deity is an integral part of that life they are trying to live. Doing so handicaps them in some ways (can't eat delicious bacon, can't have premarital sex, can't drink alcohol, gotta wake up early as hell to go to church on sunday), but 'benefits' them in other ways (they think they are going to paradise) You not partaking in religion grants you certain benefits (you can eat delicious bacon, you can party all night and have sex with multiple partners, don't feel as if you need to have kids), but you also get the handicaps that go along with those benefits (higher chance of STD, might do something stupid while your drunk, etc.)

a reply to: EverydayInVA

The solution is easy: religion doesn't let you have you have your way about anything anytime you want it.

Sound reasonable? I would think anyone with an emotional development over that of the average 3 year old would recognize that.

Religious rights DO NOT supersede all other rights! For years (some of these same) folks have been crying about EQUAL HUMAN rights as "special" ... and now you and others like you want a whole section of law giving the religious a whole host of special rights over and above what all other Americans enjoy.

The modern Republican Party is just marinating in a soup made up of bigotry, racism, xenophobia, anti-science and ignorance.

Shame since that's the party that gave us Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt two of the biggest and most influential progressive presidents we've had.

a reply to: chuck258

What greater rights do you think that our religious legitimately need?

No one is telling them what to worship, how to worship, or keeping them from worshiping as they wish, they can believe as they want, gather together as they want, etc. etc.

Since when does "religious freedom" equate do "doing whatever I want in the name of religion"?

originally posted by: EverydayInVA
This country is over and done with. I'm going to go ahead and call it, because the two sides are soooo far apart they can't even understand the other at this point. These laws have nothing to do with allowing discrimination, they see it as these groups trampling on their religious rights, and the other side doesn't even have the ability to understand it. WE might as well split this country in two already and be done with it, please.

Here's a thought....made popular back in the anti war days, by the Right Wing Conservatives.

LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT.....remember that bumper sticker?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: marg6043

This is what I don't get. People arguing in favor of this bill are arguing in favor of Segregation. It's just a different flavor. We saw that such laws were a disaster and had ZERO intention of ever going away. Heck, the resistance to desegregation was so nasty they had to call out the national guard to desegregate schools in Little Rock, Arkansas. We already KNOW how this is going to end. To pretend like it could end differently because the times are different is naive. You open the door an inch and they will kick it open a mile wide then feign persecution when you try to crack down on it.

There is not a single semblance of this law to segregation, it's not creating schools for gays only, gay only water fountains and gay seating areas in restaurants. Segregation was state laws that mandated (required) and actively enforced by the state, the separation of two groups of people based upon race. This is not requiring gays to be SEGREGATED, this is allowing certain people to opt out of a business arrangement they don't agree with. They are not remotely the same. Segregation required seperate schools, separate water fountains, separate waiting areas, etc. This law is not corralling gays. Your logic is flawed.

a reply to: muse7

The modern Republican Party is just marinating in a soup made up of bigotry, racism, xenophobia, anti-science and ignorance.

Boy you got that right. It's no wonder so many Republicans want to be called by other names

a reply to: chuck258

Don't think most far right conservatives wouldn't love to segregate gays. They already don't like transgender people using the same bathrooms. Give 'em time.

a reply to: olaru12

It seems that when it comes to religious views and what makes the religious right happy politicians think that everybody that are religious will agree with whatever is done in the name of the Christian God.

Sometimes things like this makes you wonder as what in the heck politicians regardless of political affiliations are drinking this days.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: grandmakdw

And discrimination/segregation does all those things..you say people are twisting your word when you yourself know not what they mean.

They are not talking about segregation in this bill?
Where did you get that idea?

The bill simply asks that private business people be able
to live their conscience and not be forced to do things
or participate in things they find personally objectionable.

As it stands a pedophile can walk into a bakery,
lets say a gay owned bakery, and tell the baker,
I am going to have a wedding ceremony and my
partner is 6 years old. We are in love and
having a ceremony without
the certificate, its a "pretend" wedding.

I want you to bake a cake with
me as the groom and a little girl as the bride.
Bring the cake to the venue and serve it as
you do for other weddings.
The gay baker can not refuse to make the cake, even
if the baker is appalled and repulsed and doesn't
want to go to a pedophile pretend wedding and
serve pedophiles.

As long as the pedophiles say that nothing sexual
will happen to the little girl, so nothing illegal
is going on.
And that the other attendees will be bringing
their little loved ones as couples, but nothing
sexual will be occurring at all, so nothing illegal
will be happening at the "wedding"
Well to refuse to serve would be
discriminatory and the gay baker must by the
standards you all have set here bake the cake
and serve it to the pedophiles.


The gay baker would not be allowed to say that
he/she is repulsed and find pedophilia to be
disgusting, by law and based on what you all
think is being non-discriminatory, the gay baker
would have to bake the cake and serve it or
face fines or imprisonment.


Another example, let's say I engage a photographer
who takes pictures at events, and the photographer
specializes in anniversary parties; my event is an
anniversary party for a 50th wedding, it
is me and my friends having a nudist party
anniversary for people 65-85.
The photographer is repulsed and doesn't want to
take pictures. According to all of you the photographer,
by law would not be able to refuse just because the
photographer finds nude 65-85 year old people repulsive.
If the photographer refused I would, by the standards
you have set, be able to sue the photographer, have the
photographer fined and possibly sent to jail for age
and body discrimination.

How about a florist?
The florist specializes in exotic design and creating
sculpture out of flowers.
customer wants the florist to make a sculpture
of a white police officer person
with a dagger sticking out of the heart and blood flowing
down with a sign under it "black lives matter".
It is for a large conference for black lives matter
and the person says the sculpture is symbolic
and not advocating violence of any kind.
According to your standards the florist must make the
sculpture or it would be considered racial discrimination ,
and the florist could be fined and possibly jailed for
racial discrimination.

Do you agree that all of the above florists/bakers/
photographers must serve the customers as presented
in the scenarios?

Do you also think that the florist, photographer, baker
may not refuse service in the scenarios above
because it would be discrimination?

Do you think that their feelings about the subject matter
as outlined in the scenarios above,
is irrelevant as long as nothing illegal is occurring?

Do you think it is right to force them to serve in these
instances, outlined above
or be fined so heavily they lose their business?

Or is it wrong to force them to do things they find deeply
objectionable, immoral, or completely repulsive?

originally posted by: chuck258


There is not a single semblance of this law to segregation, it's not creating schools for gays only, gay only water fountains and gay seating areas in restaurants. Segregation was state laws that mandated (required) and actively enforced by the state, the separation of two groups of people based upon race. This is not requiring gays to be SEGREGATED, this is allowing certain people to opt out of a business arrangement they don't agree with. They are not remotely the same. Segregation required seperate schools, separate water fountains, separate waiting areas, etc. This law is not corralling gays. Your logic is flawed.

This law is allowing people to take into their hands to become racist, to discriminate and to enforce their own personal views of what is moral, right and in the name of god.

As long as the government stay away from been the ones doing the enforcing, still this can be call hate and we have hate laws and discrimination laws in the books already.

Discrimination is discrimination not matter how you sugar coated it.

Plain and simple no debate on that one.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Doesn't matter, denying some one something that you do for everyone else is not practicing your religion!
It is forcing it on to the person.

That was the point I said, the one which you seem to have ignored.

I don't want people who provide a service to be able to discriminate
If you think that you can't provide a service to the public because of your religion then maybe you need to decide what is more important. You are free to practice in your private life, but you don't not have the right to deny me something because my views differ then yours.

Where there are so many options available to people
why would someone want to force others to participate
in their wedding, someone who doesn't want to?

This really isn't always the case, not everyplace is a busting metropolis.
And if you take any sort of help from the tax payer then what right do you have to deny them the service?

a reply to: grandmakdw

Your rebuttal is to compare marriage equality between adults to the pedophilic abuse of a child.

I never cease to be amazed at this, and you never cease to try to pass it by.

Pedophilia aka child abuse is not legal, ethical, moral, or even comprehensible by any sane person.

However, you always try to make the connection ...

How far do you have to go, how absurd do you have to make the example, to try to force people to accept your rather odd ideas about what is normal and acceptable.

IT ISN'T WORKING.