Six GOP Hopefuls Vow To Enshrine Anti-Gay Discrimination Into Law

The conundrum is that some beliefs actually have to be nixed by the constitution such as the religious belief that one can stop their children from having conventional medical care.

In that case the government can step-in and say to the parents:

Uh Uh…the kids getting the care and you’re belief has to be ignored


In the gay instance, the said believer can’t impugn the rights of others just to obey that religious precept as it concerns others.


So they can apply it to themselves but not others such as they can apply the medical example I site to themselves but not to their children or other people.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

What discrimination?

How about refusing housing to a single mother based on the religious belief that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage.

It doesn't give anyone the right to break ANY law.

No, they want to change the laws to where doing the above would be legal.

Yet again...WHERE DOES IT SAY THIS SUPERSEDES EVERY OTHER LAW THAT PROTECTS PEOPLE? If it doesn't...than your example is inaccurate.

As I stated they want to change the laws I will quote what you posted notice the bold on my part.

which would prohibit the federal government from "taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction

An action would be denying housing(aka buy rent home) on the basis of their religious belief. At this time it would be illegal to do so, but they want to make it where such a thing would be legal.

They can believe whatever they want and no one would care. People do care when they try to change the laws so they can use their religion as a weapon.

I contend you are wrong. If it allows someone to deny housing which is against the law already, then it allows someone to murder which is also against the law already. See my point?

originally posted by: Willtell
The conundrum is that some beliefs actually have to be nixed by the constitution such as the religious belief that one can stop their children from having conventional medical care.

In that case the government can step-in and say to the parents:

Uh Uh…the kids getting the care and you’re belief has to be ignored


In the gay instance, the said believer can’t impugn the rights of others just to obey that religious precept as it concerns others.


So they can apply it to themselves but not others such as they can apply the medical example I site to themselves but not to their children or other people.

Your government example scares the hell out of me. Are you truly ready to give these selfish, money hungry bastards the right to say "you have a confederate flag on your truck...I'm taking your kids"? Think about that level of power and how these people, who have already proven they don't know their place would use it.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Yet again...WHERE DOES IT SAY THIS SUPERSEDES EVERY OTHER LAW THAT PROTECTS PEOPLE?

You have to apply logic. If any person decides they disagree with ANY religious idea, as in: they "don't like Muslims", or "don't like Germans" or "don't like Blacks who have their own churches" ....... or don't like women who don't wear makeup, or men who wear their hair below ear-length ----------- they can then refuse service, and it would be okay.......

If it doesn't...than your example is inaccurate.

erm, it does.

So,
no.

Did you actually read the bill? Did you read the OP, where the main points were bulleted by the ACLU....?????
Did you check ANY of the sources provided?

(Granted, Fox News wasn't on the list - and that was deliberate.)

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I contend you are wrong.

That may be your opinion, but I will go with the opinion in the article written by the ACLU legislative office that says it would provide a sweeping right to discriminate in federal law.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I didn't need to check...I've read it. It doesn't supersede any other laws on the books. It doesn't give the right to deny service, the right to fair treatment, etc. A gay person denied service would still have every right to sue the business owner. It only keeps the federal government from getting involved. Civil action, which is where it belongs is wide open.

Did YOU read it?

a reply to: Grimpachi

The ACLU are a bunch of hot-heads that are trying to keep their jobs the same as many others. While some people may not like what these guys "vow" to push...it isn't what you describe. Don't play the victim as the ACLU would like you to. If you actually read it, it doesn't allow anything you guys have mentioned in this thread.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I acknowledge your opinion I just don't believe you are correct. I also looked at the legislation same as you and I believe you are wrong about it. The ACLU seems to have it correct.

So we may be at an impasse at this point. I am not a legal expert so I tend to favor opinions of those who are.

a reply to: Willtell

The conundrum is that some beliefs actually have to be nixed by the constitution such as the religious belief that one can stop their children from having conventional medical care.

In that case the government can step-in and say to the parents:

Uh Uh…the kids getting the care and you’re belief has to be ignored

YES!!! Unfortunately, there are members who think that is tyranny, and don't want to have their kids vaxed.....

IMO (and perhaps I have mistaken sarcasm on your part for sincerity - but, either way) there SHOULD be required parameters for parents......

I hope it passes. The idea we need a law to safeguard our right to freely associate is the real problem.

originally posted by: Tempter
I hope it passes. The idea we need a law to safeguard our right to freely associate is the real problem.

If passes than whats next, people of color, religion or sex.

Bigots need to get out of the past and realize their views are not needed or wanted.

If i had issues with certain people and did not want to associate with them, guess what...I can go someplace else. I would not call for those same people to be discriminated against.

It seems to me that what this bill is all about is basically extending "Religious Privilege" into the area of Private Businesses. There are already protections given to "Religious Institutions" allowing them to discriminate against certain people. For example Churches don't have to marry someone who's gay. Religious schools don't have to admit gay students. Religious organizations can opt out of Health Care requirements which provide birth control. They are allowed those Discriminatory actions based on their Religious Beliefs without worry of Federal Action being taken against them.

But now they want to extend that same protection to Private Businesses as well without having to worry about the Federal Government taking away their tax benefits, or Grants, or subsidies or contracts as a result. All it takes is for the business owner to claim Religious Privilege like the Church or Religious Organization to qualify and they can basically exempt themselves from following federal anti-discrimination laws which were previously only allowed by official Religious Organizations.

To me this is clearly making laws "Respecting Religious Affiliation" and shouldn't be allowed. Private Businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on whatever Religious beliefs they may interpret themselves to have while still receiving federal help. That money comes from tax paying gay people and non-religious people the same as it does from Christians and is favoring Religion within a Secular Government.

It's one thing to allow for Religious Organizations to Discriminate with impunity but to allow Private Businesses to do it as well is clearly placing anyone with Religious Affiliation in a Privileged Status above everyone else.

a reply to: mOjOm

This opens a door for everyone if passed. If they do not like certain groups they can always claim "religious privilege" and find some outdated quote to back it up.

originally posted by: theonenonlyone
a reply to: mOjOm

This opens a door for everyone if passed. If they do not like certain groups they can always claim "religious privilege" and find some outdated quote to back it up.

That's not any better.

Also, I get the feeling that Atheists or Muslims would have a much harder time getting away with it.

originally posted by: mOjOm


Also, I get the feeling that Atheists or Muslims would have a much harder time getting away with it.

Yep, I really wish the GOP politicians and people that are for this were honest. Tell the world what they really mean and that they only want this for one specific group.

a reply to: mOjOm

To me this is clearly making laws "Respecting Religious Affiliation" and shouldn't be allowed. Private Businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on whatever Religious beliefs they may interpret themselves to have while still receiving federal help. That money comes from tax paying gay people and non-religious people the same as it does from Christians and is favoring Religion within a Secular Government.

It's one thing to allow for Religious Organizations to Discriminate with impunity but to allow Private Businesses to do it as well is clearly placing anyone with Religious Affiliation in a Privileged Status above everyone else.

EXACTLY!
Glad you're here. Thank you. Very well spoken. (Written)

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Meanwhile king obozo funds the murder of gays....

Sssshhhhh we have to be silent on that....

He has a "d" in front of his name, and they're brown people from a different country so that's ok!

We need to focus on all those evil Christians...

The hypocrisy is sickening

😳 sometimes you just need to shake your head and move on.

originally posted by: pyramid head
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Meanwhile king obozo funds the murder of gays....

Sssshhhhh we have to be silent on that....

He has a "d" in front of his name, and they're brown people from a different country so that's ok!

We need to focus on all those evil Christians...

The hypocrisy is sickening

What the hell did any of that mean??? What are you 6 years old???

At least make some sense by using the language correctly when you decide to troll. It's not very good trolling when nobody can even understand what you say.

In what reality is this ever going to happen?

This would be like if a few years after interracial marriage was made "legal" it was then reversed.

Doing something like this would make us the laughing stock of the world. "Look at the USA, they can't even decide who can marry! Haha! They're so divided, we should take advantage of them!"