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

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Their services need to be offered equally to all - their rights end where others' LEGAL RIGHTS begin.

The "free market" has done nothing of late but allow these bigoted assholes to get away with treating people like sub-par humans and then starting a "GoFundMe" page.

Be careful what you wish for - the other side of this is allowing companies to put signs on their door that say "NO CHRISTIANS" or "GAYS ONLY."

Or - "NO COLOREDS"..... or
"NO FAT CHICKS"
etc.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Be careful what you wish for - the other side of this is allowing companies to put signs on their door that say "NO CHRISTIANS" or "GAYS ONLY."

Or - "NO COLOREDS"..... or
"NO FAT CHICKS"
etc.

Would you allow the federal government to discriminate against a mosque for refusing to do gay marriages?

a reply to: buster2010

I'll ask again. Do you believe a federal government should be taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage?"

Let's just pass an amendment to the Constitution that says something to the effect of "...assholes who emotionally distress other people are expressly forbidden, and punishable by methods determined by the legislature."

You don't have a right to be free from assholes. Do you understand that the only way to accomplish that is to round up everyone who doesn't agree with you (how else would you determine what an "asshole" is, if not by self-comparison) and then either "re-educate" or exterminate them?

Does that even bother you guys?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

There are already laws allowing churches and clergy to opt out of performing marriages.

Allowing a JUDGE or a CLERK of the government to refuse service that is open to others is discrimination.
You know this -

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

There are already laws allowing churches and clergy to opt out of performing marriages.

Allowing a JUDGE or a CLERK of the government to refuse service that is open to others is discrimination.
You know this -

That's what freedom is, allowing people to do things they want, allowing them to be assholes, allowing them to discriminate.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What are you attempting - to confuse me with buried rhetorical meaning?

Some think of this as a "debate tactic".

a reply to: NthOther

You don't have a right to be free from assholes. Do you understand that the only way to accomplish that is to round up everyone who doesn't agree with you (how else would you determine what an "asshole" is, if not by self-comparison) and then either "re-educate" or exterminate them?

Does that even bother you guys?

Did I say anything about "extermination"?

THE LAW applies to everyone (in theory) - tell me, are you familiar with residential zone "red-lining" in the history of Real Estate in the US?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Yeah, I know - it makes them feel superior. Especially when they have nothing of substance to say to a real-life issue.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Yeah, why worry about Muslims and the dreaded Sharia law when the Christians that are HERE NOW are entrenched in our government and CLEARLY hyper-focused on implementing their own brand of religion-based government?

Sounds like bigotry to me. I seem to recall something like this being said about the jews.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Did I say anything about "extermination"?

Do you have another way of getting rid of all those religious assholes that are making life so difficult for your protected classes?

I'd love to hear it.

THE LAW applies to everyone (in theory) - tell me, are you familiar with residential zone "red-lining" in the history of Real Estate in the US?

Now we're talking about real estate? Ok. Enlighten me.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It IS bigotry - so why are you defending it, or trying to put words into other people's mouths?
What about you - I asked NthOther, but I'll ask you, too -

Are you familiar with residential "red-lining" from last century - where people of certain skin-tone were not allowed to buy property in "homogenous" neighborhoods?

There is right now, in real life, a vacant house for sale next door to mine. There's nothing I can do to stop crack-heads (which thankfully got run off by the fact that we CALL THE COPS) or Evangelical-types (the opposite neighboring property to mine is a Baptist Church, which is largely also unoccupied) or Asian Immigrants from buying and occupying that house; or for muslims or evangelicals or pastafarians to go to that church.

Why can't we just treat everyone equally? This attempt to "clarify" the 1st Amendment is as weak as the lefts attempt to "clarify" the 2nd Amendment.

Leave the Bill of Rights alone.
Leave the Constitution alone.

Treat people equally. Why is this so hard?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

It IS bigotry - so why are you defending it, or trying to put words into other people's mouths?

I'm not defending bigotry. You are. This whole thread is bigoted against a certain religious denomination.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

So then you agree with the proposed First Amendment Defence act?

No, I don't. It defines "discriminatory action" as ANY action against such a person, including a penalty assessed. In other words, This law would protect a person from a penalty if they discriminate based on their religion. A non-religious person who performed the SAME act would be penalized by the government. It is special rights for the religious. And I don't support special rights for anyone.

Under this law, it would be perfectly legal for Kim Davis to deny legal rights to gay people because ... religion. She would not be allowed to be penalized in any way and would keep her job. Under this law, it would be legal for a restaurant owner to kick black people, gay people, women out of their restaurant because ... religion.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Jeez... All your sophistic rhetoric where you think you are being witty doesn't hide the fact that in reality this law is an outlet to let businesses and even federal institutions discriminate against people who don't live by the same religious standards as they do.

Your arguing obtuse linguistic theory (rather badly as any linguist will tell you that these words like freedom and liberty are up for grabs depending on who is using them) and everyone else is arguing based on reality, businesses and individuals who want the right to refuse services to LGBT people. Based on reality all these posters are against any legislation that would allow any religious right a$$holes from not providing services to LGBT. It's that clear. That's what this legislation was written to do, not because of derp derp pseudo linguistic adolescent analysis but because that is what the actions of the people who wrote and support it has been.

So no, religious people do not have the right to treat someone different in business because they don't line up with their religious views. Emphatically positively NO NO NO .. That is not a first amendment right.

For instance, you don't line up with my religious views. If I was king of the internet and life I'd ban you to not write more than 10 words a post and only one post a year. My religion tells me you should not post on the internet. Thank God that the first amendment doesn't allow me to limit your rights.

And in truth I am too wise to actually want to ban anyone's speech, but it was a good example.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The difference is that skin tone is not a lifestyle choice (well maybe now it is, with modern "medicine").

So we're back to the whole debate on whether homosexuality is a choice or not. Which no one knows.

Your argument is therefore predicated entirely on emotion, and how your feelings feel about it.

a reply to: NthOther

As I just posted - back in the last half of last century, there were legal means to keep certain "elements" (read: those considered to be "undesirables" out of the marketplace) away from certain neighborhoods/zip codes. It also was used by banks and insurers.

In the United States, redlining is the practice of denying services, either directly or through selectively raising prices, to residents of certain areas based on the racial or ethnic makeups of those areas. While some of the most famous examples of redlining regard denying financial services such as banking or insurance,[2] other services such as health care [3] or even supermarkets,[4] can be denied to residents to carry out redlining.[5] The term "redlining" was coined in the late 1960s by John McKnight, a sociologist and community activist.[6] It refers to the practice of marking a red line on a map to delineate the area where banks would not invest; later the term was applied to discrimination against a particular group of people (usually by race or sex) irrespective of geography.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the 90s, a law was passed that required banks to give mortgages to AT LEAST a few percent of their local DEPOSITORS - prior to that, banks could set up shop next door and yet refuse service to certain people.

Definition: Redlining is against the law. It is a discriminatory practice, involving lenders which refuse to lend money or extend credit to borrowers in certain "struggling" areas of town. It is against the law to discriminate against borrowers based on race or income level, among other factors. Redlining became known as such because lenders would draw a red line around a neighborhood on a map, often targeting areas with a high concentration of minorities, and then refusing to lend in those areas because they considered the risk too high.

Even though it is now against the law, some lenders today are still accused of redlining.

homebuying.about.com...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

No, I don't. It defines "discriminatory action" as ANY action against such a person, including a penalty assessed. In other words, This law would protect a person from a penalty if they discriminate based on their religion. A non-religious person who performed the SAME act would be penalized by the government. It is special rights for the religious. And I don't support special rights for anyone.

Under this law, it would be perfectly legal for Kim Davis to deny legal rights to gay people because ... religion. She would not be allowed to be penalized in any way and would keep her job. Under this law, it would be legal for a restaurant owner to kick black people, gay people, women out of their restaurant because ... religion.

It doesn't give special rights to the religious. It clearly states religious belief or moral conviction.

a reply to: NthOther

So we're back to the whole debate on whether homosexuality is a choice or not. Which no one knows.

The homosexuals know and they say it's not a choice. I believe them.

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense.