Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

a reply to: FlyersFan

This would allow a business owner who was a devout Christian to refuse service to a gay couple because their lifestyle conflicts with Christian beliefs.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
This protects business owners.

I'm only finding 'religious based business'. That's why I was wondering about the actual wording and not that which is filtered by the far right or the far left.

It has potential to be abused. It also has potential to protect religious rights of people from being abused.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Bobby Jindal wants minority discrimination legislation against gays? Fine.

Although i seriously doubt he'd be enthusiastic about dropping all discrimination laws, considering he's ethnic Asian...talk about out and out hypocrite.

a reply to: beezzer

Religious Institutions already recognise gay marriage, albeit recognised negatively by most of these religious institutions, but recognised nonetheless. Whether they will recognise gay marriage positively or negatively is up to the individuals who make up the institution. (answering your post question here)

Just like ATS the religious institution is a nothing more than a collection of individuals bound together by Terms and Conditions and a common thought-pattern and world view-point - some will be happy and accepting of the idea, others will not and still others will leave - or be banned..

BUT - you cannot force someone to like an idea (or in the case of your post - force an institution to like or accept a law), nor can a bullet kill it...........only a better idea can do that.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
This would allow a business owner who was a devout Christian to refuse service to a gay couple because their lifestyle conflicts with Christian beliefs.

It would also protect a religious business from being forced to go against their religious beliefs. Like a Jewish kosher deli being forced to serve bacon or a Muslim restaurant having to serve wine. (not good examples, but you get the idea).

I'm very much in favor of marriage equality. But I'm also very much in favor of freedom of religion which includes freedom to run a family owned business with religious principles (no matter if those religious beliefs are wonky to me). So I'll wait until I read the expected executive order before commenting further.

This warrants watching .... I'm glad it was posted.

a reply to: FlyersFan

From what I'm finding, he has signed it, but I can't find it anywhere on the internet yet.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
What I don't get is forcing those that are not in favor due to religious beliefs, being forced to marry same sex couples.

This is absolutely NOT about forcing anyone to marry anyone. It's about the government not being able to step in and rectify discrimination in businesses.

Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal on Tuesday (19 May) issued an executive order allowing businesses to turn away LGBTI customers, two hours after a House panel rejected a 'religious freedom' bill.

'I’m issuing an Executive Order to prevent the state from discriminating against people, charities and family-owned businesses with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman,' the Republican said. - See more at: www.gaystarnews.com...

My question is still, why would a gay man/woman/couple even WANT to frequent a business that doesn't want them there? Either way, unless they are walking in announcing they are gay when they open the door, how would the business know? I am sure in certain instances these things will present themselves, such as eating lunch and holding hands or sharing a kiss or whatever, but if the business is run and owned by Christians, then they should have the right to refuse based on that I think....and again, if someone told me they didn't want me in their business because of something, then you can bet I would not be giving them any business. A dissatisfied customer is the worst thing a business can have....they tell a LOT more people than a satisfied one....if there is that big of a movement in the area, then that business will likely suffer because of their choice, but I think it should be a choice the business is able to make.

Call me old fashioned, but I don't tell anyone about my personal life that I don't know.....I just don't get the need for people to announce their personal life all over the place, nor the need for anyone to really care about their personal life so much that they would discriminate against them for anything. So petty to me.....

a reply to: FlyersFan

I don't believe it has to be a religion based business. I think it's any business who's owner's have devout beliefs so a flooring store owned by devout Christians can refuse to sell carpet to a gay couple.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Louisiana doesn't recognize same sex marriage so at this point *no one* is being compelled to have any involvement in same sex marriages because they don't exist in Louisiana.

So then what's the point of the legislation?

Clearly the law isn't designed to explicitly protect Churches and members of the clergy from being compelled to perform or participate in same sex marriages/marriage ceremonies:

A. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, this state shall not take any adverse action against a person, wholly or partially, on the basis that such person acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction about the institution of marriage.

The term "person" means a natural or juridical person as defined in Civil Code Article 24, and includes any such person regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof, and regardless of for-profit or nonprofit status.

Seems to me that Louisiana conservatives are concerned that the Supreme Court might legalize same sex marriage and so they are trying to pass a law that prevents the state from taking any action — including denying contracts, pulling grants, etc — against anyone who claims that their actions are guided by "religious beliefs or moral convictions" about marriage except for marriage between one man and one woman.

What I don't understand is the insistence on being coy? Who the hell really doesn't see through this thin veneer of "protecting religious freedom" and see what the intended purpose of these sorts of laws actually is?

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: FlyersFan
I don't believe it has to be a religion based business. I think it's any business who's owner's have devout beliefs so a flooring store owned by devout Christians can refuse to sell carpet to a gay couple.

So far all we can go on is this -

'I’m issuing an Executive Order to prevent the state from discriminating against people, charities and family-owned businesses with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman,' the Republican said.

That's why I want to see the actual wording before I say anything more.
Sounds kinda like the Hobby Lobby thing.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
This would allow a business owner who was a devout Christian to refuse service to a gay couple because their lifestyle conflicts with Christian beliefs.

It would also protect a religious business from being forced to go against their religious beliefs. Like a Jewish kosher deli being forced to serve bacon or a Muslim restaurant having to serve wine. (not good examples, but you get the idea).

I'm very much in favor of marriage equality. But I'm also very much in favor of freedom of religion which includes freedom to run a family owned business with religious principles (no matter if those religious beliefs are wonky to me). So I'll wait until I read the expected executive order before commenting further.

This warrants watching .... I'm glad it was posted.

I see a law like this making a loophole for Christian business owners being able to file their business as a Christian business solely for this reason......yet another form of segregation.....at this rate, everything will have a label by the time my kids are on their own.

I am sooooooooo sick of this PC crap in the US and how everyone needs to be sensitive to everyone else.....

originally posted by: FlyersFan
It would also protect a religious business from being forced to go against their religious beliefs.

So, let's say religious businesses, churches, pastors, etc weren't protected. THEN this bill would protect them. But it ALSO protects ALL businesses with "a religious beliefs about marriage"...

Text of Executive Order

“Person” is defined in 1 USC 1: “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—…the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;…”
...
... government should take no adverse action to: Deny or exclude such person from receiving any state grant, contract, cooperative agreement, loan, professional license, certification, accreditation, employment, or other similar position or status;

Person also means churches, but that's good. Churches SHOULD be exempt. But they already are.

It's not about bacon or pork, those are products. It's about Muslims denying service to pig-headed, holier than thou, know it all Christians. I hope they buy up all the arenas and deny all Christians enterance to any sporting events. It would serve them right for trying this.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Jewish delis do serve bacon. Not all their customers are Jewish lol. Now a kosher deli would be a different thing altogether. Zabars sells ham sandwiches.
They also sell kosher foods.


www.zabars.com...

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: beezzer

Religious Institutions already recognise gay marriage, albeit recognised negatively by most of these religious institutions, but recognised nonetheless. Whether they will recognise gay marriage positively or negatively is up to the individuals who make up the institution. (answering your post question here)

Just like ATS the religious institution is a nothing more than a collection of individuals bound together by Terms and Conditions and a common thought-pattern and world view-point - some will be happy and accepting of the idea, others will not and still others will leave - or be banned..

BUT - you cannot force someone to like an idea (or in the case of your post - force an institution to like or accept a law), nor can a bullet kill it...........only a better idea can do that.

Couldn't have said that any better than you just did. Thank you sir.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
My question is still, why would a gay man/woman/couple even WANT to frequent a business that doesn't want them there?

If you're getting married and want flowers, how do you know which flower shops are open to providing flowers for your wedding? I'm sure they don't WANT to frequent a business that doesn't want their money, but how do they know?

A "No Gays" sign in the window?

Either way, unless they are walking in announcing they are gay when they open the door, how would the business know?

Maybe the couple goes in together to order flowers for their wedding.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Correct me if I'm wrong but Louisiana doesn't recognize same sex marriage so at this point *no one* is being compelled to have any involvement in same sex marriages because they don't exist in Louisiana.

So then what's the point of the legislation?

The Supreme Court is getting ready to rule on marriage equality. It may become legal on a national level. This is a preemptive move by Jindal.

a reply to: damwel

Would we still be able to have Christians in the arenas as part of the show? If not what will the lions eat?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I see a law like this making a loophole for Christian business owners being able to file their business as a Christian business solely for this reason......

That's possible. But a business wouldn't have to be a religious business to discriminate. As long as the PERSON you talk to has religious objections to marriage equality, they can refuse customers and not be held accountable for it.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

My question is still, why would a gay man/woman/couple even WANT to frequent a business that doesn't want them there

Why do you think that is a relevant question? I wonder if in the 60's there were a lot of segregationists saying, "why would a black even WANT to frequent a business that doesn't want them there?"

Either way, unless they are walking in announcing they are gay when they open the door, how would the business know?

How is this a relevant question either? Civil rights shouldn't be dependent on an individual's ability to disguise themselves. Let me give an analogy that might resonate better with a conservative:

It would be like saying you have a right to possess a gun as long as the government doesn't know about it.