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.

 

BREAKING: AZ Senate Passes 'Right to Discriminate' Bill

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


The first Amendment doesn't give the religious the right to punish or discipline citizens through their business practices based on religious differences.

I could say that my God tells me that "meth" is holy and that I should use and promote it's use. Should I be legally allowed to practice my self proclaimed religion?

Yours is a made up argument, in my opinion, just as my meth god is a made up religion. To say that one's religion, in this case Christianity, requires that its followers must persecute or discriminate against certain other so called sinners, just isn't a factual part of doctrinal Christianity. I don't see how it can be defended.



But it's okay now. You are free to discriminate against people based on what they believe in.

It is okay to deny them their rights to operate a faith-based business as they see fit.


I don't think so. Please define a "faith based business". I'm just not following your logic.




posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


The law would protect people who run faith based businesses. But most here think the law is bad, and that Christians are bad for having a specific faith.

They would rather deny those with faith, from expressing their beliefs.

I see a conflict here and for the most part, it has been answered, though I am disappointed.

I see one group, being given the right to express who they are. And that is good.

I see another group being denied the right to express who they are. And that is bad.

But, as many have said, Christians don't deserve their rights any longer. Because their beliefs are all out dated.

I guess as one group comes out of a closet, another gets forced in.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

beezzer

flammadraco
reply to post by beezzer
 


Are you actually saying that your relgious beliefs supersede human rights?


Are you saying that human rights supercede religious- oh wait, you are. . . . .


Damm right human rights supersede relgious beliefs.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 




faith-based
[feyth-beyst] Show IPA

adjective
affiliated with, supported by, or based on a religion or religious group: faith-based charities.

dictionary.reference.com...



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


The law would protect people who run faith based businesses. But most here think the law is bad, and that Christians are bad for having a specific faith.

They would rather deny those with faith, from expressing their beliefs.

I see a conflict here and for the most part, it has been answered, though I am disappointed.

I see one group, being given the right to express who they are. And that is good.

I see another group being denied the right to express who they are. And that is bad.

But, as many have said, Christians don't deserve their rights any longer. Because their beliefs are all out dated.

I guess as one group comes out of a closet, another gets forced in.


You have been given examples where Christian Dogma is outdated:

* working on a sabbeth
* wearing mixed fibres
* keeping slaves
* putting woman to death for being witches
* women who have been raped should be put to death

Are you saying that you have the right for the aforementioned teachings to still have a place in today's society? Just because no one has been put to death in the US for the these examples, does not mean your bible did not teach this and thus is how outdated and has no place in civilised society.

Perhaps you would feel more comfortable living in New Guinea, they still put people to death for witchcraft because of their relgious teachings.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 


I'm a Christian. I haven't stoned, nor killed anyone for . . . . hours!

I also think gays have every right as anyone else. But I am just one man. Many disagree.

You obviously see my faith as something that deserves to be hidden or placed in a closet.

I see faith as something that should be celebrated and encouraged.

Unfortunately, for me, there are more vocally opinionated people that would push to deny my rights to practice my faith in every aspect of my life. Because it flies in the face of whatever society deems important this instant!

You win.

I guess I can go hide in the closet and be discriminated against. Society says you can openly do that to me.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by windword
 




faith-based
[feyth-beyst] Show IPA

adjective
affiliated with, supported by, or based on a religion or religious group: faith-based charities.

dictionary.reference.com...


Faith based business are already exempt and are irrelevant to the law that we're talking about. This Arizona law addresses secular business and individuals with religious proclivities that they want to carry them over to the work place.

This law provides that an IHOP waitress could refuse to serve gay customers and be protected from discipline or being fired by IHOP management, based on her religious belief that they are sinners.

That's not right.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I've already been spanked once in this thread and I don't wish to do anything further that would get me punished.

So I'll cede defeat.

You all win.

Gays are good.
Christians are bad.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
-George Orwell



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


No one is saying not to "Celebrate" your Religion. if people feel the need to preach to everyone they see thus 'Expressing' their Religion that is their Right, but how does that give someone the right to Discriminate?

i don't believe anyone in this topic has said that "Religion" should not be practiced if that is what you believe, only that Discrimination and Human Rights should not be violated based on a "Belief" system

Expressing your Religion, Wearing Crosses and other Religious Jewelry, Faith-Based Clothes, Etc is not being Debated, only the fact that people want the Government to grant them the "Right" to discriminate.

They would still have the right to "Believe" in their Religion, Express it, Preach it Etc, can you explain how allowing someone to Deny a service to someone because they are Gay all of a sudden is "Freedom of Religion"?

What if someone "Pretended" to be Heterosexual... would that be a Sin if the business owner served them?



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


You, I'll reply to.



I was just reflecting on this thread. It was so damned devisive. Right from the start. Not one person (even me) came up with a solution that would satisfy both parties.

I jumped to the defense of the Christians, because I was seeing a huge disdain and hatred for religion and faith-based practice.

I don't know why some Christians are all upset about this. I don't know why there are some gay folks that want to irritate religious folks.

My solution, if I was ever leader of the earth (which will be next year btw, Beware, The Cult of The Bunny) would be to teach respect.

Christians, respect those that are different from you.

Homosexuals, respect those that don't agree with your lifestyle.


I would make no laws. Because you can't legislate morality. I would stress respect. I would preach, respect. I would parade, respect.

I would make it a new meme.

Respect everyone and everything. Before you dismiss someone, learn a little about them before you turn to hatred.

Christians, love a gay person! You can't discriminate what you love!
Gays, love a Christian person! You can't insult and dismiss something that you love!

I would not dismiss those that are gay. That would insult them.
I would not dismiss those that are Christian. That would insult them.

We spend so much time seeing who is MORE equal, who is MORE right, when we should learn a little more about humility, and accept everyone.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I concur with some of your points in your last post, however I have personally seen Christian Groups holding offensive placards towards LGBT people on Gay Parades in the UK. (side note: for the last two years there has been another Christian group holding placards apologising for the other groups behaviour) in the US you have Westboro Church doing the most evil thing that a Christian can do by attending funerals and picketing. I've seen a lot more "hatred" from Christians towards the LGBT community than vice versa. I'm sure other members would agree with this.

How can you expect the LGBT community to have any respect for religion when all they receive is hatred. I agree that not all Christian's have this view, but unfortunately the more vocal members of your church do.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Yay! makes me feel special


Does your Cult have room for a Rainbow Bunny?


i wasn't trying to attack you, or make it seem like i was, or attack your Belief system.

i agree with you, no one should discriminate or be discriminated against. i am not syaing to 'force' anyone to believe a certain way, and if your Religion dictates your acceptance of a Homosexual or not is your life, your belief, but that shouldn't be a cause for the Government to grant "Protection" for a right to discriminate. likewise the LGBT community should not get he protection to discriminate,

and i am not asking for "Special Treatment" for myself or others just because i am gay, i just don't want to be discriminated against,



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


Once you ask government to grant protection, you cede authority over your own life to grant it yourself.

And yes, My little rainbow bunny, you are always more than welcome.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   

flammadraco


How can you expect the LGBT community to have any respect for religion when all they receive is hatred. I agree that not all Christian's have this view, but unfortunately the more vocal members of your church do.


I wasn't going to reply to you or anyone else for that matter, but I will say this;


Someone has to take the first step. Someone has to be the bigger man, the better man.

Is it going to be the gay community that says, "I love and respect you, regardless".

Or is it going to be the Christian community?

As a Christian, I will and do embrace the gay community and the people in my life that happen to be gay. It is not a political issue, it is not a personal issue, it is a human issue.

What I will no abide, however, is bias, discrimination, hatred towards ANY group.

Be it;
Gay
Christian
Jewish
White
Black
Muslim
Obese
Smokers
Vegans
etc

Or any other god damned secular group.

You folks want to hate, you're going to have to do it without me.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





Once you ask government to grant protection, you cede authority over your own life to grant it yourself.


Is this a word of advice to the sinners, ie: gays, birth control and abortion users, mixed race couples, who might find themselves discriminated against or those Christians who wrote this bill and those who back this bill, granting special treatment and exemptions because of their religious beliefs?



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by beezzer
 





Once you ask government to grant protection, you cede authority over your own life to grant it yourself.


Is this a word of advice to the sinners, ie: gays, birth control and abortion users, mixed race couples, who might find themselves discriminated against or those Christians who wrote this bill and those who back this bill, granting special treatment and exemptions because of their religious beliefs?


self edit.

I'm not going to reply to your posts any more.

Good day



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Yay!

I agree, i have always tried to come from a place of Love. i always wonder, if i can at 23 why can't others? Hate is easy, discrimination is easy, it is easy to pass the responsibility on Religion or an Ideology, but in the end we are all Human.

and this is one of the main problems with this Law, i have heard many tell me "i don't hate the sinner i hate the sin"... well fine but i can't go into a Store and buy some Tic-Tac's? what would that have to do with the "Sin"? and how is my purchase a sin? does your Religion forbid you to sell an object to another Human just because they are Gay?

Again, hate is easy... i could easily protest Churches with hateful signs and lies but what good would that do?

“War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate“



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


You know, all it takes is one person to forgive.

Jesus did it, you've done it.

Why can't another, simple one person do it from each side?



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by beezzer
 




Yet now, people are being "legislated to acceptance" of a characteristic that goes against their religious teachings.


"Acceptance of a characteristic"? As opposed to what?

In early AD Rome, Roman tax collectors determined what the appropriate tax rate for men was by examining their genitals. If they were circumcised (like Jews were) they paid a higher tax, because of their religious "characteristic".

Should we allow our society to go back in proverbial time and subject certain people to different standards, higher prices or flat out banishment based on the color of their skin or their race, like the mixed gender couple that recently got Cheerios in hot water, gender or the religion of who they befriend or love?




edit on 21-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)


We are already there, and it is being driven by our govt.

Did you know that the Federal Govt is pursuing business and charging discrimination because they ran a background check on a potential employee and then failed to hire him because he was a felon (but only if he is not white).

Seems that if you run a background check on every potential employee regardless of race, color, creed, sexual orientation etc etc that if you do so with a minority and fail to hire him because of the background check then you are discriminating.

Please, challenge that statement. Please tell me that is not govt endorsed discrimination.

Given that the govt is exercising discrimination, by what right do they accuse others of the same?



The EEOC does state that whenever a minority applicant is excluded from employment because of a criminal background check, that national data “supports” a finding of racial discrimination due to disproportionate rates of minority incarceration rates vis-à-vis others. Seemingly, employers can—and are being—investigated by the EEOC for conducting across-the-board or blanket criminal background checks regardless of whether there is evidence of overt racial discrimination and discriminatory intent because, as the EEOC maintains, the mere exclusion of a minority applicant because of a criminal conviction “supports” a finding of racial discrimination.


And...


There is one more caveat. In March 2013, the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a Final Rule to formalize a national standard to determine whether a housing practice violates the Fair Housing Act as a result of the discriminatory effect. Brett Woodburn wrote about the same in a previous article. Based upon Federal Courts’ rulings, the Final Rule provides that liability under the Fair Housing Act may be established based upon a showing that a neutral practice has a disparate impact on a protected class. This could bring into question the practice of denying housing just because a criminal background check shows past convictions, especially if those decisions to deny housing have a disparate impact on a certain protected class.




edit on 21-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   

beezzer

flammadraco
reply to post by beezzer
 


Who knows when the last person was put to death for working on a Sunday, probably at the same time the Christian Church put woman to death for being witches. The point I was making and that you are trying to avoid, this was taught to Christians in the same way as the bible discriminates against the LGBT today.

How can you only practice some of your religious dogma and not all of it? The same book you are using to discriminate today is the same book that said that people should be put to death for working on a Sunday.

Just answer this one question Beezer, the bible states that a person should be put to death for working on a Sunday 15 times. In comparison the bible only mentions homosexuality 6 times. How can Christians work on a Sunday and yet condem the LGBT community? Does this mean that Christian Business Owners can refuse to serve people who work on a Sunday?

You cannot cheery pick parts of your holy book that suit you.


I'm not going by the bible at all.

I'm using the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights as my source.

Religious freedom is a constitutionally protected right.

Um. . . well. . . . it used to be. . . . .


You should reread the US Constitution and the Bill of rights again. There is no such thing as rights for a business they are only for the people of this nation. A PERSON has every right to practice their religion but a company cannot practice any religion. Only a living being can understand a concept of religion not something made of wood and stone.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join