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

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The battle has been won for gay marriage. It's legal. Hell even Obama said marriage should be between a man and a woman. But the right for gay marriage is there. There is no right to force others to perform that marriage, whether priest, rabbi or imam. Debate their beliefs; do not take away their individual rights.

Christians already have the right to not marry people in their own church.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Right. But people think that this bill gives Christians the right to discriminate against gay people.

a reply to: LordSnow21

George Washington said ALOT of things.



And he is right about that.

Because the end we do not answer to each other.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Right. But people think that this bill gives Christians the right to discriminate against gay people.

We are allowed to discriminate against anyone we want.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We are allowed to discriminate against anyone we want.

No that is not true. Businesses for example can not hire or fire people based on religion beliefs.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Your duplicity is showing.

Of course there's nothing in the constitution about gay marriage! There's nothing in there about straight marriage, either. There's nothing in there at all about marriage - Marriage is not a defined right, therefore it cannot be taken away. This is, and should always be a choice between two consenting adults, the fed can keep their noses out of our business.

The correct questions are more along the lines of
"Which rights are being infringed upon? "
"Which laws are being broken?"
"What does the constitution and the bill of rights ACTUALLY SAY?"

We have the right to privacy. My biggest argument is the government has no business in marriage in the first place, but since they stick their nose in everything and have to justify their taxation and give benefits to married couples, we have to accept the fact that their nose is where it's not meant to be in the first place. Is it within the spectrum of the law to say nothing on marriage, and gay marriage, even having no laws at all about marriage - This is just fine!

But it's also against the law to deny gay marriage. This infringes on many of our rights, ESPECIALLY if said legislation were to actually be practiced and offenders sought after - What, you want an officer breaking down my door to make sure I'm not with another man??? Look up the fourth amendment and get back to me.

Conservatives are far too curious about what others are doing in the bedroom - Isn't perversion a sin in most religions?

Also, separation of church and state, let's talk about that.

Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'

Now, "establishment of religion" can be interpreted is various ways, and is not defined extremely well even within the bill itself, so far as I can see. I would argue that it has more a more esoteric meaning than first glance, as in restricting legislatures from passing laws solely based on religious beliefs.

Based on religious beliefs - This means that I really believe they have no other support of such discrimination other than that of their religious morals. If other data existed to prove that gay marriage should be illegal for any logical reason, I'm sure I would hear far, far more arguments from the right based on such data - As of now, the argument is not logical, it's very prejudiced and opinionated.

Please give a counter-argument that is logical in basis on why it is okay to discriminate against gay marriage. You can go ahead and argue my points, interpreting different things as you see fit, but attempting to defeat my argument does not support your own argument, it get's us back to neutral and does not help resolve the matter of whether or not the pledge of these men is reasonable, and lawful.

Let's see you come up with some logical, constitutionally backed arguments that supports discrimination. I'll get the popcorn.

-Deadlyhope

a reply to: Deaf Alien

No that is not true. Businesses for example can not hire or fire people based on religion beliefs.

Correct. But that's exactly what this bill is asking for.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Allowed? That's some funky language, we are also allowed to be put in front of a jury if found to be guilty of breaking the law....Which there are laws against discrimination, businesses for instance, cannot discriminate based on gender, ethnicity, etc.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

or otherwise deny any federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment, or similar position or status from or to such person;
or withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit under a federal benefit program.

when interracial marraige became legal and acceptable, there was one college that still refused to abide by the rulings, and they went on for quite some time discriminating against interracial couples, choosing instead to lose their federal funding. this would have made it so that the gov't couldn't withhold that funding from them.
consider how some want to take the title x money and medicaid money from planned parenthood and give it to other groups, some of which, are being run by religious groups, well, with this law, if they took the money from planned parenthood....because of the oh, no they are selling baby parts garbage and they don't do mammograms, well, the groups that the money is going to could refuse to give birth control to unwed women, refuse to serve the gay community, ect.

religious groups already have plenty of protections for their religious beliefs, they can refuse to hire women, and be exempt from the employment discrimination laws and still get their federal money. they can force a women in labor to lay there miscarrying and do nothing for her waiting for the baby's heartbeat to stop before they will remove the fetus, even if it causes life threatening infection for her.

they don't need more laws protecting their beliefs!

a reply to: deadlyhope

Your diatribe was unnecessary.

Please give a counter-argument that is logical in basis on why it is okay to discriminate against gay marriage. You can go ahead and argue my points, interpreting different things as you see fit, but attempting to defeat my argument does not support your own argument, it get's us back to neutral and does not help resolve the matter of whether or not the pledge of these men is reasonable, and lawful.

Because you cannot force someone to do something that is against their religious beliefs and moral conscience. It is a cornerstone of democracy.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

as a person, maybe, but not as a business, a healthcare provider, employer, ect....
then you can't, or well, maybe I should say that if you get caught doing it, things might not turn out too well for you.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Allowed? That's some funky language, we are also allowed to be put in front of a jury if found to be guilty of breaking the law....Which there are laws against discrimination, businesses for instance, cannot discriminate based on gender, ethnicity, etc.

You have yet to point out a single right you think these people are denying. The federal government now recognises gay marriage. Gay people can go get married, and rightfully so in my opinion. What other right is being denied?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Remember we were talking about Kim Davis? The gay couples were denied their right to get marriage certificates at her office.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You're not forcing anyone to do anything particular, you are ensuring they do not take certain actions.

Example: A radical extremist isis member wants to cut off my head, is this his unalienable right?

You may say my example is extreme, but the waters you are wading in get really deep, really fast.

You still have to follow the laws of the land. Anti-discriminatory laws are currently the law of the land, and I argue that these laws should not go away. Political correctness is a bitch, but so is this religious correctness.

a reply to: dawnstar

as a person, maybe, but not as a business, a healthcare provider, employer, ect....
then you can't, or well, maybe I should say that if you get caught doing it, things might not turn out too well for you.

Interesting side note. It is also on the company, when accused of discrimination, to prove it did not discriminate. It's called reverse onus claim. I think it happened to Sears in the 70's, when they were charged with gender discrimination, they had to prove they didn't discriminate, as opposed to the accusers proving they were discriminated against. After so many years of legal battles, they finally one.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Example: A radical extremist isis member wants to cut off my head, is this his unalienable right?

Of course not. It is your right to life and liberty. Strange example.

You still have to follow the laws of the land. Anti-discriminatory laws are currently the law of the land, and I argue that these laws should not go away. Political correctness is a bitch, but so is this religious correctness.

Which anti-discrimination law are you talking about? I'm still waiting for that one.

There are so many things the country needs done, public works, environmental protections, job creation, but they pick THIS to champion? I for one can care less what people do as long as they keep it to themselves, but this just shows how bereft they are of constructive ideas that they decide to make the country "safe" from the gay menace.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Remember we were talking about Kim Davis? The gay couples were denied their right to get marriage certificates at her office.

Was it a government office? I'm not too familiar with the case.

a reply to: openminded2011

There are so many things the country needs done, public works, environmental protections, job creation, but they pick THIS to champion?

They want more votes.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Quoting from the original post...

"Its parade of horribles would:

allow federal contractors or grantees, including those that provide important social services like homeless shelters or drug treatment programs, to turn away LGBT people or anyone who has an intimate relationship outside of a marriage


let commercial landlords violate longstanding fair housing laws by refusing housing to a single mother based on the religious belief that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage

permit a university to continue to receive federal financial assistance even when it fires an unmarried teacher simply for becoming pregnant

permit government employees to discriminate against married same-sex couples and their families – federal employees could refuse to process tax returns, visa applications, or Social Security checks for all married same-sex couples

allow businesses to discriminate by refusing to let gay or lesbian employees care for their sick spouse, in violation of family medical leave laws"