Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Annee

hey this might get interesting
does a mayor's executive order override a governor's or does the governors have more power???

Actually, I don't think what the governor did will hold up.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Isn't this the same Louisiana that still allows churches to discriminate against interracial couples?

That's legal via the Constitution. Not state.

I think.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Isn't this the same Louisiana that still allows churches to discriminate against interracial couples?

That's legal via the Constitution. Not state.

I think.

Yup. Freedom of religion and all.........except if you're Muslim (recent anti sharia law bill in Texas) or Rastafarian (anti ganja laws) or any other religion BUT Christian.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Isn't this the same Louisiana that still allows churches to discriminate against interracial couples?

That's legal via the Constitution. Not state.

I think.

Yup. Freedom of religion and all.........except if you're Muslim (recent anti sharia law bill in Texas) or Rastafarian (anti ganja laws) or any other religion BUT Christian.

Yes - Sharia Law should be allowed under religious freedom - - IMO

Amish and certain Jewish sects have their own laws.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Isn't this the same Louisiana that still allows churches to discriminate against interracial couples?

That's legal via the Constitution. Not state.

I think.

Yup. Freedom of religion and all.........except if you're Muslim (recent anti sharia law bill in Texas) or Rastafarian (anti ganja laws) or any other religion BUT Christian.

Yes - Sharia Law should be allowed under religious freedom - - IMO

Amish and certain Jewish sects have their own laws.

The Amish and Jews are close enough to Christianity to be equal in the dumbed down American mind.

But ANYTHING that is different, God forbid we give YOU freedom......

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Isn't this the same Louisiana that still allows churches to discriminate against interracial couples?

That's legal via the Constitution. Not state.

I think.

Yup. Freedom of religion and all.........except if you're Muslim (recent anti sharia law bill in Texas) or Rastafarian (anti ganja laws) or any other religion BUT Christian.

Yes - Sharia Law should be allowed under religious freedom - - IMO

Amish and certain Jewish sects have their own laws.

The Amish and Jews are close enough to Christianity to be equal in the dumbed down American mind.

But ANYTHING that is different, God forbid we give YOU freedom......

Hey! I'm atheist.

Logical thinker.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Isn't this the same Louisiana that still allows churches to discriminate against interracial couples?

That's legal via the Constitution. Not state.

I think.

Yup. Freedom of religion and all.........except if you're Muslim (recent anti sharia law bill in Texas) or Rastafarian (anti ganja laws) or any other religion BUT Christian.

Yes - Sharia Law should be allowed under religious freedom - - IMO

Amish and certain Jewish sects have their own laws.

The Amish and Jews are close enough to Christianity to be equal in the dumbed down American mind.

But ANYTHING that is different, God forbid we give YOU freedom......

Hey! I'm atheist.

Logical thinker.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Isn't this the same Louisiana that still allows churches to discriminate against interracial couples?

That's legal via the Constitution. Not state.

I think.

Yup. Freedom of religion and all.........except if you're Muslim (recent anti sharia law bill in Texas) or Rastafarian (anti ganja laws) or any other religion BUT Christian.

Yes - Sharia Law should be allowed under religious freedom - - IMO

Amish and certain Jewish sects have their own laws.

The Amish and Jews are close enough to Christianity to be equal in the dumbed down American mind.

But ANYTHING that is different, God forbid we give YOU freedom......

Hey! I'm atheist.

Logical thinker.

I meant the inclusive "you" not the individual "you".

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Isn't this the same Louisiana that still allows churches to discriminate against interracial couples?

Any church in the country can discriminate against anybody they want. The first amendment guarantees that. That's why all these threats of suing churches are so insane.

originally posted by: Annee
Actually, I don't think what the governor did will hold up.

I don't either. Jindal's is for purely political reasons (to court the bigotry end of the spectrum) and the mayor's is to keep the sanity in his city by protecting the people and the income from their festivals and tourism. And because he's not a bigot.

I also agree with you on Sharia Law. If they want to have additional laws that they impose on themselves, as long as they continue to obey US law, I don't see a problem. Of course... the fear level is pretty high among those who are against it... They think we're all going to be living under Sharia Law... When was the last time you got arrested for not affixing a reflective triangle to your vehicle because of Amish Law??? Or been legally forced to stay with your husband because of Canon Law? And they are both practiced here in the US.

Why bother...the left lies and twists the facts when this was actually an ANTI-DISCRIMINATION.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Why bother...the left lies and twists the facts when this was actually an ANTI-DISCRIMINATION.

When ANY business owner discriminates, they can get in trouble with the law. Why should religious business owners get "special rights" to discriminate? That's all they want. Special rights. And then when they don't get "special rights", THEY scream "DISCRIMINATION"! It's not discrimination to have to obey the law... I think religious people had better learn that.

And if you have read any "lies or twisted facts" in this thread, please feel free to bring them to light with proof that they're not true.

Looks like Jindal's EO is probably not worth the paper its printed on.

Power of Jindal's EO Being Questioned

Louisiana governors have wide-ranging powers during emergencies, like a hurricane, said Terry Ryder, a former Jindal appointee who previously served as chief lawyer for two past governors, Republican Mike Foster and Democrat Kathleen Blanco. But, he said, "There is no emergency now."

Because powers that come with a disaster do not apply, any executive order must comply with existing law, Ryder said.

"If he exceeds that, then he has exceeded the authority granted to him by the Legislature," Ryder said.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
When is the federal government going to admit LGBT's as a protected class so nonsense like this is forced to stop?

As soon as they admit white straight male Christians as one.

They already are!

White (check!) Race is a protected class!
Male (check!) Gender is a protected class!
Christian (check!) Religion is a protected class!

The only thing that's not protected is your sexual orientation and that's what should be added.

And, by the way, stores are NOT private.

This shows how very little you know about the subject.

Store are very much private if the owner wants them to be. You can lock the door and only allow the people you want in. Done ALL the time with high end stores.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: dismanrc
The people that are pushing this are not interested in that right. They are interested in an agenda and pushing that agenda to the max.

That is the main issue I have on this.

So, you've manufactured the idea that gay people don't REALLY want to be married, they're messing with people for the fun of it... And that's your major issue... Something that isn't even true.

I would completely support the idea of a store that posted a sign saying the owners did not serve XXX. It is a private store and they have the right to serve whoever they want.

A store is not private! It's a public accommodation, with the public freely going in and out of it... Another "fact" you've made up.

It's amazing the lengths people will go to to create a fantasy so they can deny equal rights to other people! Amazing!

Amazing the lengths people will go thou8gh to bass someone that does not agree with them

And no a store does NOT have to be a public accommodation. Just look at all the private clubs and private store that there are all ready.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Why bother...the left lies and twists the facts when this was actually an ANTI-DISCRIMINATION.

When ANY business owner discriminates, they can get in trouble with the law. Why should religious business owners get "special rights" to discriminate? That's all they want. Special rights. And then when they don't get "special rights", THEY scream "DISCRIMINATION"! It's not discrimination to have to obey the law... I think religious people had better learn that.

And if you have read any "lies or twisted facts" in this thread, please feel free to bring them to light with proof that they're not true.

Looks like Jindal's EO is probably not worth the paper its printed on.

Power of Jindal's EO Being Questioned

Louisiana governors have wide-ranging powers during emergencies, like a hurricane, said Terry Ryder, a former Jindal appointee who previously served as chief lawyer for two past governors, Republican Mike Foster and Democrat Kathleen Blanco. But, he said, "There is no emergency now."

Because powers that come with a disaster do not apply, any executive order must comply with existing law, Ryder said.

"If he exceeds that, then he has exceeded the authority granted to him by the Legislature," Ryder said.

If an individual has the option and choice to decide what company to do business with, than equality is that the business can decide what individual to do business with. That would be FAIR and EQUAL. But you, like others like you don't want equality for everyone. You want equality for those you agree with.

You don't seem to understand the words EQUAL and FAIR. What you should do is simply state what you really want. You wish to choose who you believe to be right and force their opposition to comply. Equal as far as income and expense is a percentage. But I'm willing to bet you don't agree with a 10% tax for everyone...do you? Fair would be three FoxNews like stations to match the three liberal media stations...but you don't want that...do you. Fair and equal is giving the job to the best qualified candidate even if they happen to be white. Fair is to follow the law and lock down the borders...arrest the illegals (you know...people who broke our laws) and send them home. Fair is to allow our system to function with our representatives (those who represent us) to battle it out in congress...not issue executive orders that only feature the current resident's opinions. Fair is that all people's views are considered when making decisions that affect us all...not just the party who won.

It is really that simple. Maybe instead of EQUAL and FAIR you guys should say BIASED and OPINIONATED.

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
When is the federal government going to admit LGBT's as a protected class so nonsense like this is forced to stop?

As soon as they admit white straight male Christians as one.

No one is legally discriminating against that demographic though. So it is unnecessary.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Putting it in caps doesn't make it any less bull#.

originally posted by: dismanrc
Store are very much private if the owner wants them to be. You can lock the door and only allow the people you want in. Done ALL the time with high end stores.

Stores are not private. Learn the law. And only allowing the Kardashians in for a private shopping spree is not discriminating against a demographic.

originally posted by: dismanrc
And no a store does NOT have to be a public accommodation. Just look at all the private clubs and private store that there are all ready.

A "private club" is not a store.
You say there are private stores. Show me one.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You are talking about what YOU think should be "fair and equal". I'm talking about the law. Your disagreement isn't with me, it's with the law. I suggest you write your congressman.

originally posted by: Monger
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Putting it in caps doesn't make it any less bull#.

I put "fair" and "equal" in caps. And I agree...you and others consider them bull#.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You are talking about what YOU think should be "fair and equal". I'm talking about the law. Your disagreement isn't with me, it's with the law. I suggest you write your congressman.

You are wrong. I'm not stating what I believe should be fair and equal...I am stating what is equal. If we were talking about taxes, anything other than an equal, across the board percentage is not equal. 10% from you and 10% from me is equal. $100 from you and $100 from me is not. Nor is a higher percentage for you and a lower percentage from me. That is not equal and therefore not fair.

Like it or not...this is fact. If I can choose who I do business with, equality is that a business owner is allowed to choose who they do business with. That makes us equal on that specific topic. If you disagree, which I don't see how you can without lying...tell me what is equal in this case. If a person can choose who they want as their doctor, how is it equal if a doctor can't choose who they will accept as a patient?

Your logic would state that I could wear a KKK uniform and choose a black baker (for example). Equal would be that the black baker can choose not to accept me in my KKK uniform as a customer.