Republican Congress Strips Women and Gays of Rights Under Guise of ‘Religious Freedom’

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mOjOm

But I cannot go into a Muslim bakery and have them make a cake with the picture of the prophet on it because that goes against their religious beliefs.

Only if it's something they don't do for anyone else.

Which they don't.

Muslim bakeries don't decorate cakes?

Bull.

That's not what you posted.

And not what I responded to.

a reply to: beezzer

You can't force a Muslim Bakery to draw a picture of Mohammad, you can't force a Christian Bakery to put two grooms on a cake, you can't go to a Scientology baker and force them to write Xenu is the devil, but all those bakeries can be made to make you the same cake that the people before you bought.

As far as ideologies go I don't believe they are all worth respecting. I would never respect a Nazi ideology nor do I respect Scientology's ideology neither deserve respect.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: beezzer

This thread is about them trying to pass a law (or bill) allowing employers in Washington, DC to fire anyone due to their religious beliefs.

Of course this thread expanded to discuss about businesses that discriminate against customers but never mind that.

Is it ok for employers to fire the workers because they used birth control? Or anything else that are against employers' religious beliefs?

No.

It's a stupid law, but I only made that clear 5974384 pages ago!

Religious institutions, religious businesses should have the freedom to hire/fire whomever they wish without government stepping in.

Because this will not end well for anyone.

Christ!

I spent PAGES using Socratic methods to illustrate this. Maybe I did it wrong, maybe I screwed up.

But with any law comes a rebound. This law will be defeated, and the moderates won't give a damn.

But extremists will push the envelope.

there will be people walking into Muslim bakeries demanding cakes decorated with the prophet.

There will be people marching into LGBT bakeries wanting cakes for their anti-gay rallies.

It'll only get uglier and uglier . . .

BECAUSE NO-ONE FRACKING RESPECTS ANYONE OR ANYTHING ANYMORE!!!!!

Jesus! You all just don't f###ing get it!

a reply to: Grimpachi

its art.. and any bakery who does their own art, does so according to the customers wishes who hires them... If I want a wedding cake, I ask for it specifically they way I would like it done... if I want a birthday cake.. I can ask for a giant penis on it, or have it made in the shape of one if I like... its art.. and it is done to your request..

so yes, that art request might be offensive to some..

a reply to: OpinionatedB

Yet, artist have always had the ability to decline commissioned work.

That has already been reviewed.

Check this previous post and the link under the title "Denver baker sued for refusing to write anti-gay slogans on cake".

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: beezzer

Religious institutions, religious businesses should have the freedom to hire/fire whomever they wish without government stepping in.

Eh? I think you are confused. Or maybe I am confused?

Do you think hospitals like St. Jude should be able to fire nurses and doctors because they are not of faith? What about clinics?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: beezzer

Religious institutions, religious businesses should have the freedom to hire/fire whomever they wish without government stepping in.

Eh? I think you are confused. Or maybe I am confused?

Do you think hospitals like St. Jude should be able to fire nurses and doctors because they are not of faith? What about clinics?

I work for a religious institution.

As part of the hiring process, I agreed to abide by THEIR religious dictates.

If I violate that contract, then they have every right to fire me.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: beezzer

You can't force a Muslim Bakery to draw a picture of Mohammad, you can't force a Christian Bakery to put two grooms on a cake, you can't go to a Scientology baker and force them to write Xenu is the devil, but all those bakeries can be made to make you the same cake that the people before you bought.

watch that being tested, repeatedly.

As far as ideologies go I don't believe they are all worth respecting. I would never respect a Nazi ideology nor do I respect Scientology's ideology neither deserve respect.

I can respect their rights to free expression under the Constitution.

a reply to: beezzer

I guess they would have to keep lying to keep their jobs.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: beezzer

I guess they would have to keep lying to keep their jobs.

So would anyone who violated their contract of hire.

a reply to: beezzer

watch that being tested, repeatedly.

Everything will be tested. In fact it has already been tested and held at least once so far.

I can respect their rights to free expression under the Constitution.

I respect that they have those rights as well, but that is a far cry from respecting their ideologies. Those are two very different things.

a reply to: Grimpachi

You have a point and I will concede that even I don't respect every ideology.

a reply to: beezzer

Cool.

I think that was pretty much all I was disagreeing on or confused by.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

The "slight" according to the OP against the LGBT community is this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

^^^ might want to read the above sober for the fullest understanding..

as for the other aspect of what happened from the OP.. the District of Columbia moved to change this law that was in law since 1977..

2012 District of Columbia Code
Section 2-1401.05
Discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, or breastfeeding

(a) For the purposes of interpreting this chapter, discrimination on the basis of sex shall include, but not be limited to, discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, or breastfeeding.

(b) Women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, or breastfeeding shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and this requirement shall include, but not be limited to, a requirement that an employer must treat an employee temporarily unable to perform the functions of her job because of her pregnancy-related condition in the same manner as it treats other employees with temporary disabilities.

link

^^^ that is the law that has been on the books, agreed to by all and everyone has been happy with that law.. The District of Columbia (as you can see, all this applies ONLY to the District of Columbia, not the whole nation on BOTH counts) so. they moved to change that law you see above.. to this:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
That this act may be cited as the "Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014".

Sec. 2. Section 105 of the Human Rights Act of 1977, effective July 17, 1985 (D.C. Law 6-8; D.C. Official Code § 2-1401.05), is amended as follows:

(a) Subsection (a) is amended by striking the phrase "related medical conditions, or breastfeeding" and inserting the phrase "related medical conditions, breastfeeding, or reproductive health decisions" in its place.

(b) Subsection (b) is amended by striking the phrase "related medical conditions, or breastfeeding" and inserting the phrase "related medical conditions, or breastfeeding, and employees affected by reproductive health decisions" in its place.

(c) A new subsection (c) is added to read as follows:

"(c) For the purposes of this section, the term "reproductive health decisions" includes a decision by an employee, an employee's dependent, or an employee's spouse related to the use or intended use of a particular drug, device, or medical service, including the use or intended use of contraception or fertility control or the planned or intended initiation or termination of a pregnancy."

lims.dccouncil.us...

The thing about the original law, was that it put pregnancy and related issues under the same laws as a temporary disability.. ... it means much more than they cannot fire you.. it means that you are legally considered temporarily disabled, and as such you are entitled to paid leave if your company has temporary disability benefits, which many companies do have..

I have worked at a job that had those benefits before.. they are really nice, and they pay you for any time off that you are considered temporarily disabled.. I will assume that in the District of Columbia that there are many employers with the benefit...

so this law, puts someone who takes time off to go get an IUD for instance, in the same category as someone who broke their leg, or has to take leave to have a child.. they will be paid for their time off..

congress is always for the businesses, especially larger businesses, and when you take and put attendance at the fertility clinic as cause for paid leave.. you will be having many businesses and their insurance companies upset about that..

I am simply going to assume that is what this is about in truth.. its about classifying trips to the fertility clinic as a temporary disability..and again, all congress did was to say no to the amending of an existing law.. not create some new one.. www.congress.gov...

The OP was nothing more than a hyped up piece of trash intended to get you emotional ... unless of course you really are against private religious institutions being able to make their own rules according to their religious beliefs, and of course unless you think someone going to the fertility clinic should be paid for their time off work.. but at least don't lie about the facts and what you are for, if that be the case.

a reply to: mOjOm

"To me this isn't just about Christians vs. Gays. This is about plain old fashioned Bigotry and attacking people simply for who they are."

Absolutely. People think that because I think Christians should be forced to obey the law and not discriminate, that means I believe gay people should have an exception to discriminate - wrong!

Should a bakery bake a cake for a gay rally? Absolutely, as long as they aren't trying to make the bakery go against discrimination laws by writing discriminating things on the cake.

An anti-gay person asking for a cake - ok,
an anti-gay person asking a bakery to write discriminating words on a cake - not fine.

A racist asking for a cake - ok
A racist asking for a cake saying "Hail KKK" - not ok.

It's not about emotion/opinion, but obeying the law to not discriminate.

a reply to: arpgme

Words cannot discriminate.

Actions can discriminate.

Cake decorations cannot discriminate.

A cake decoration cannot deny me my rights.

If you think words, just words can discriminate, then you are abridging free speech.

The United States of America...

Pfft, not even close.


Thread after thread after thread on ATS of constant, neverending division going with you people.

It's a sad thing to watch from the outside looking in.

I mean that sincerely.

a reply to: CranialSponge

And everyone in Canada agrees with everyone all the time?

dang.

We sure are screwed up!

a reply to: beezzer

Of course not.

But we don't make it our life's work to focus on divisive issues.

It's just a very different dynamic here, for a lack of better description.

a reply to: CranialSponge

Let me translate.

We're a##holes.