Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

a reply to: FlyersFan

It's not "on the books" though. Only illiterate morons believe that. See -- the thing is: it's ALL sin. Eating bacon or shellfish, wearing polyester, getting tattooed, NOT stoning your disobedient children to death, taking the lord's name in vain, etc.

The idea is that we are ALL sinners. Every single one of us. BUT -- we are redeemed through Christ.

Period. End of story.

These people are picking and choosing based on the belief that their life is without sin, while someone else's life IS sin. It's a false belief because it is clearly contradicted in their book. The rest of us have a social / moral obligation to stand up and say, "Hey - first remove the 2 x 4 from your own eye, because you are wrong. Stop the internal dialog. You are wrong."

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: corvuscorrax
It's sad that to largest most passionate discussions on this site are dedicated to some of the most superfluous topics.

Superfluous topics like liberty and equality?

In this instance yes. People should have the liberty to be gay. People should have to liberty to discriminate against gays. Just as gays should have the liberty to discriminate against those who aren't.

You do know that forced equality is not liberty right?

a reply to: vonclod

or that their biggest suppliers of inventory is chinese companies that at least up to recently were used by the chinese gov't to enfore their one child rule...
I say up to recently one because they might have chance their policy I know there was talk that they were recently....

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Superfluous topics like liberty and equality?

No. Gay people's liberty and equality. That's what's being seen as superfluous.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: corvuscorrax
It's sad that to largest most passionate discussions on this site are dedicated to some of the most superfluous topics.

Superfluous topics like liberty and equality?

This has nothing to do with liberty.

"Equality" is a misnomer, I presume what you mean is equal protection under the law.

a reply to: greencmp

So then you should be against this EO in the OP since it is unconstitutional (regardless of what the EO actually does) because it is trying to rule by edict.

No idea who Bobby Jindal is but he sounds like a # to me....

originally posted by: corvuscorrax
You do know that forced equality is not liberty right?

The 14th amendment "forces" equality, so I'd have to say that the US Constitution disagrees with you. We're talking about equal treatment under the law.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

A "No Gays" sign in the window?

Why not? Make 'em wear it.

Kinda like Hester Prynn in the Scarlet Letter. If they're bigot enough to deny service on the sly, they can damned well wear it with pride, so I know who not to give my money to. Consumers need protection, seems to me.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

So then you should be against this EO in the OP since it is unconstitutional (regardless of what the EO actually does) because it is trying to rule by edict.

Yes, this has been a fast progressing thread and I didn't make that clear.

That said, I got the impression that the conversation was as much about the desirability of federal mandates and executive orders as it was against state mandates and executive orders.

They are all bad ideas and they all detract from liberty, freedom and justice.

a reply to: seagull

I agree. If a business wants to deny service to anyone, then they can put a sign in the glass in front. That way, everyone will know ahead of time and it would save people a lot of shame and embarrassment.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I certainly am.

Executive Orders are so contrary to what our govt should be as to beggar the imagination.

This needs to change.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Yea, it's not like we don't have legal precedent for our side. Christianity has tried and failed to use this defense in the past. Now they are pretending like it is a valid argument again.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: corvuscorrax
You do know that forced equality is not liberty right?

The 14th amendment "forces" equality, so I'd have to say that the US Constitution disagrees with you. We're talking about equal treatment under the law.

And we all know that the law is a flawless, perfect thing.

a reply to: seagull

ya I'm with you if the gov't is gonna grant SOME businesses the right to pick and chose their customers, employees, whatever, then they can at least make them put a sign outside on their windows along with within their advertisements, so I will know who not to waste my travel time going to!
but I imagine a sign on their door would be bad for business and we all know how pro business the gov't it in this country where profit is GOD so I doubt if they'd go that far!

originally posted by: greencmp
That said, I got the impression that the conversation was as much about the desirability of federal mandates and executive orders as it was against state mandates and executive orders.

I don't know where you got that idea. The point of Obama's EOs in the OP is that Jindal is a huge critic of them when Obama does it. But when HE does it, it's right and good... He's a hypocrite, but what politician isn't?

a reply to: greencmp

Right it is a fast moving thread. So fast moving that we've veered a tad off topic in the discussion to the legitamacy of the religious right being able to discriminate against LGBT's and I thought I'd remind everyone that we started talking about an asshat politician being hypocritical with his actions and political rhetoric.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
It's not "on the books" though. Only illiterate morons believe that.

Yes it's 'on the books'. I gave the link for the Catholics. Its part of their belief.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: greencmp
That said, I got the impression that the conversation was as much about the desirability of federal mandates and executive orders as it was against state mandates and executive orders.

I don't know where you got that idea. The point of Obama's EOs in the OP is that Jindal is a huge critic of them when Obama does it. But when HE does it, it's right and good... He's a hypocrite, but what politician isn't?

Cool, I'm glad that you are also against new laws and are for rescinding existing ones.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Right it is a fast moving thread. So fast moving that we've veered a tad off topic in the discussion to the legitamacy of the religious right being able to discriminate against LGBT's and I thought I'd remind everyone that we started talking about an asshat politician being hypocritical with his actions and political rhetoric.

Of course they can unless they use violence. Are you saying that black barber shops should be forced to do buns?

Should Chinese restaurants be made to cater to western palates at the point of a gun?

These aren't great examples but, you get the drift I hope.

How about this one, should Bandidos bakery be forced to make cakes for the Cossacks initiation party?