Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

a reply to: dawnstar

Do you think that we should not have freedom of religious expression?

a reply to: TrappedPrincess

Be very careful for what you wish for,you just might get it and you
would probably not like it.As a believer that we are the end times
generation written about in revelation.
1.There will be a one world religion
2.A one world government
3.Mass deception on a global basis
Any feelings of freedom from religion will be short lived.Those basking
in it's euphoria will have a rude wake up call.

originally posted by: dragonridr
No its not no where does it say it's about businesses

Sure it does. Right here - www.abovetopsecret.com...

…the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;…”

Nothing about churches or priests in there...

it says someone can't be sued for their religious beliefs.

Nope. Doesn't say that. Show me where you read that in the Executive order (linked above). Of course you can't sue someone for what they BELIEVE in. This EO is saying that the government can't "burden" someone for their ACTIONS, meaning they can't revoke their license, for example.

As I said there are a lot of businesses that specifically cater to one type of clients.It's not illegal though a bad business model in my opinion not illegal.

Like who? Do you mean like ... A wedding dress shop will cater to women, for example, but they don't refuse service to men.

Strangely enough (like I feel it in my heart) I agree with you yet feel no fear...take it as you will a reply to: mamabeth

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

This have nothing to do with "Freedom of Religion or restoring any religious crap"this is enforcing religion no as a choice but as a state mandate, like throwing crap to the wall and see if is stick.

Because of the nature of such ordinances, executive orders and all that falls under the same path, are not actually protected by the constitutional rights to freedom of religion that means you can worship anything you want without been persecuted, but what the Jindal promise is a fundamentalist push for discrimination under religion.

Is not different that any other bill that is targeting a particular group and their choices, this latest effort of fundamentalist to use laws for discriminating under religious freedom is not different than the one is been pushed for anti abortion laws.

Under the constitution you can not target particular groups of people and their freedom of choice.

Plain and simple, he is piece of crap and is looking for anything to get votes.

a reply to: beezzer

you have it!! I don't see where it's going anywhere!! I drive into town and I must pass at least four or five churches of various faiths before I hit the city border. You more than likely can find a resturant in your city that if you go into and order your dinner a little after the church services end and soon see it filled up with many nicely dressed people who you will soon hear expressing their religion with no problem. Go on you tube and do a search on any religious topic and you will find many expressing their religious views.

This isn't about religious expression or really being able to express your religious views in my opinion. This is using those views to hinder others from living their lives the way they feel they should be living them...

And here I am gonna deviate from the topic mainly because I just have trouble to relating to either side on it!

Instead I am gonna bring up the one I did before and tell you, it is wrong to pick and chose which beliefs should have protection and which shouldn't! If we do this we are heading toward that one world religion in my opinion. If the business owner can discriminate in their hiring practices when it comes to gays because of their religious beliefs, which isn't a long stretch from the florist refusing to sell flowers really, if one is encouraging and helping the behavior by selling flowers then I don't see how one can say that one isn't doing the same by providing the job that earns the money to buy the flowers! Well then those ant-idiscrimination laws that are on the books that say that an employer cannot discriminate in their hiring practices concerning women would also fly in the face of those believing baptist christians and I also pointed out that it wasn't that danged long ago that it was danged near impossible to get a job in one city in tx because of those religious beliefs.
So which in your opinion should win out? the religious beliefs that says that women shouldn't be in the workforce, unless of course their husbands want them to be, or the one that says that it doesn't matter what you believe, the women has a right to work if she wants to or finds a need to? Because I have to tell ya, that a mother may not only have a religious belief that she should do all within her power to see to it her kids have what they need to grow into adulthood but also a strong natural urge to!!

a reply to: mamabeth
and the leader of this one world relgious government will be the ANTI-christ...
he will use all those lovely religious tenats twisted together to con the religious followers to do some of the most ungodly things in the name of God!! That only happens when religion and gov't merge and corrupt each other!

a reply to: beezzer

"Constitutional rights to freedom of religion" is not the same as expressing your religious views unto others, the first one in the constitution is to avoid been persecuted for your choice of worship the second one is actually a way to force others to your religious views. that is actually interfering with others Right to freedoms and it can be considered persecution.

Constitutional freedom of religion is base under the assumption that without it states will impose their own religious laws and create theocracies, burn witches and persecute anybody that will not follow states religious laws.

AMEN!!! (shaking fist) GOD WILLS IT!!!! RABBLE RABBLE a reply to: dawnstar

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: beezzer

you have it!! I don't see where it's going anywhere!!

I think Beezzer is under the impression that "religious expression" includes ACTING on one's beliefs, by discriminating against people one doesn't approve of. We tackled it earlier in the thread and I posted the legal definition of "religious expression" that clearly states that religious EXPRESSION is protected, as long as it is not used as an excuse to deny rights to others.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I've already conceeded the point, I'm just trying to determine how much restriction to religious expression would be considered a good thing for proponents of such measures.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

obviously, your idea wasn't accepted by some...

if I had the money I'd go open up a nice resturant beside the biggest church and well a few months after opening, once it's members got used to coming for their after church dinners, I'd post a no christians allowed sign on the door and just to see what would happen..
would they raise a stink about it or would they take their own advice and just go elsewhere?

a reply to: dawnstar

True and the last time our planet had this twisted type of religion
and government we had world war 2.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I've already conceeded the point, I'm just trying to determine how much restriction to religious expression would be considered a good thing for proponents of such measures.

The only restriction on religious expression is that you don't use it to deny others their rights. Like the right for a citizen to enter a public accommodation and do business there.

What other restrictions are you talking about?

I think religious expression should be limited to private functions i.e. church or at home and should require a permit for any kind of public demonstration just like any other kind of demonstration. It shouldn't be viewed as if it has any scientific or factual basing in any aspect of life.

In short you should be able to practice whatever belief system you want but not allowed to use it to discriminate or prevent others from the pursuit of happiness. a reply to: beezzer

originally posted by: dawnstar
if I had the money I'd go open up a nice resturant beside the biggest church and well a few months after opening, once it's members got used to coming for their after church dinners, I'd post a no christians allowed sign on the door and just to see what would happen..
would they raise a stink about it or would they take their own advice and just go elsewhere?

I definitely think there would be a stink. But it would be illegal for you to do so, because RELIGION is a protected group. You cannot deny them. LGBT is NOT a protected group and religion wants to keep it that way. Religious people want (and are getting) the "special rights" they've been accusing gay people of wanting for many years.

So, now that religions are a protected class and gay people aren't, they're happy. Seems they're against "special rights" unless the rights belong to them.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The only restriction on religious expression is that you don't use it to deny others their rights. Like the right for a citizen to enter a public accommodation and do business there.

What other restrictions are you talking about?

The rights of a business owner to decline to do business based on religious tenets for one. But this is an old saw, (public accomidation) so I won't regurgitate what has already been stated.

I'm also looking down the road and seeing what further restrictions to religious expression might also be acceptable to those that have a disdain for religious people.

World war one was primarily so a small few industry leaders (owners) could get mega rich. World war 2 was an extension of that plus the added agenda of creating the great divide between democracy and every other kind of government especially communism, not religious persecution that was the cover story sorry to burst your bubble.a reply to: mamabeth

BOOOM!!!! Somebody gets it.a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

a reply to: dawnstar

It would raise a stink until someone remembered that christians
will be suffering soon during the end times.I am expecting these
and worse to happen soon and am preparing for it.
Before WW2 got really started,jews were not allowed to own businesses
and had their businesses shut down.Then they couldn't walk on the sidewalks
or use public parks or transportation.Then they had to wear stars on their sleeves
and were herded into slums.Then finally they were shipped to death camps.
Since we never learn from past mistakes we will keep making them over and
over again.