Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

so, if I am a devout catholic that believes divorced people should not remarry and I am asked to provide flowers for a wedding that includes a divorced person, I have to comply...
but if it's a gay wedding I don't have to....
only well that isn't really protecting my religious rights is it? I mean I might find both to be equally offensive to my religious beliefs...
who's the one that gets to decide which religious beliefs should be protected and which shouldn't?? shouldn't they all be?

a reply to: dawnstar

Yes, you should comply in both situations. Your opinion on the marital relations of the people getting married is irrelevant to the request they made, to provide some flowers.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Don't get me started on 'rule by executive order'. It's wrong no matter who does it. Be it a governor (Jindal) or a POTUS (Obama), it's just wrong. It's sidestepping the process ... and the process is there for a reason.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I would think that would solely depend on the policies a business has in place.....an employee making a decision for a business that is not policy is typically a firing offense. The employee has no right to make that decision for a business. If they did and it was against company policy and the owner found out about it and rectified it, then there is no issue.

Interesting.

How about a bakery with a policy against making cakes that might be used in a same sex wedding reception and an employee, guided by his own moral convictions, who goes against policy and knowingly makes a cake for the same sex wedding reception and is fired?

The law seems pretty well tailored to protect a business owner's ability to make discriminatory policies, period. Churches and religious organizations already have ample protection and the protections of the law aren't applicable to the circumstances of most individuals.

Sure....if the policy of that bakery is as stated and an employee directly breaks policy based on their own judgement call, then that employee can be fired.

My office has a policy of no "tailgating" when coming in a door as security here is very tight because of our business. It is a firing offense with no warning. Now, it is also up to the executives if they want to bend that rule based on the violation, such as if the "tailgater" is another employee or a visitor. I personally think that part of this particular policy should be changed to reflect that division, but apparently there is a reason not to reflect it.

And yes....the law is set up to protect a business owner's ability to make discriminatory policies. If it weren't, then how would a business be able to pick the best candidate for a job? They have to make decisions based on discriminatory reasons for the person being the best fit for the position or the company....though I get that you are using the term in the prejudicial sense, discrimination is used daily in hiring and it has to be to get the best possible candidate to further a business.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: introvert
It should not be debatable.

But it is. Religious rights are protected. Forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs is an infringement upon their constitutionally protected rights.

They are not being forced to go against their beliefs. They don't HAVE to operate a business. If they do choose to run a business, they should be expected to operate in a way that serves the entire public and not just people their PRIVATE beliefs agree with.

Think of it this way. Let's say we allow business owners to discriminate against people for religious reasons. What if someone says that their religion will not let them serve black people? Would that be acceptable?

I doubt it.

But we would have to let them. Correct? That is their religious belief.

If we don't allow people to discriminate for whatever reason, that would mean that the government is respecting the religious beliefs of one group of people over the others. Correct?

You have to draw a line and that line should be that you can believe whatever you want, but if you want to do business in the public you are expected to serve everyone, regardless if their personal choices conflict with your beliefs.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

not if some get their way!! if they get their way, there will be some beliefs that are held above others- like gay marriage and birth control... and then they can just target any group they wish, just by exalted a belief above the rest.
The one I would like to see exalted would be the "Thou Shalt Not Lie"..... I think that one would take care of 99% of the crap that goes on in this nation!

originally posted by: FlyersFan
That's like saying my neighbor pays taxes so I should have a right to walk through their house. Paying taxes doesn't trump a persons constitutional rights.

Your neighbor is not in contract with the state to provide goods and services for the public (the citizens of the state). He's a private citizen.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: introvert
It should not be debatable.

But it is. Religious rights are protected. Forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs is an infringement upon their constitutionally protected rights.

Like I said earlier, you have the right to religious freedom. You DON'T have the right to use that religious freedom to discriminate against someone else.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs is an infringement upon their constitutionally protected rights.

It's not forcing a PERSON. It's forcing a business to provide the goods and services it has contracted to do.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Krazysh0t

not if some get their way!! if they get their way, there will be some beliefs that are held above others- like gay marriage and birth control... and then they can just target any group they wish, just by exalted a belief above the rest.
The one I would like to see exalted would be the "Thou Shalt Not Lie"..... I think that one would take care of 99% of the crap that goes on in this nation!

So we should allow businesses to discriminate because a minority from the class of people being discriminated against may take things too far? What kind of rationale is that?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: introvert
It should not be debatable.

But it is. Religious rights are protected. Forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs is an infringement upon their constitutionally protected rights.

Like I said earlier, you have the right to religious freedom. You DON'T have the right to use that religious freedom to discriminate against someone else.

So you have the right to religious freedom as long as you don't use it.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Yes. Thank goodness there are limits to EOs.

originally posted by: introvert
They are not being forced to go against their beliefs.

Yes they are.

They don't HAVE to operate a business. If they do choose to run a business, they should be expected to operate in a way that serves the entire public and not just people their PRIVATE beliefs agree with.

That's not what the law says. Religious people can run a business based on religious principles. And if you force people of religious conviction to operate their business in a secular manner, then you have discriminated against them.

Religious folks and same-sex-couple folks should have equal rights. You can't step on the rights of religious folks to run their life and their business in a religious manner.

Again - I'm for marriage equality.
But you can't take away the rights of others in order to get it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

no I am just saying, especially to those who actually support these kinds of laws, that well, you are probably doing something that is going against someone's religious views also... you think that you can confine this to one or two aspects of your beliefs but I would like to warn you that well....
you just might feel the sting of the discrimination yourselves if you succeed! The laws wouldn't be fair otherwise!!!

originally posted by: beezzer
So you have the right to religious freedom as long as you don't use it.

If your religious freedom told you that the abortions doctors should die, would you consider it to be "using your religious freedom" to kill one? Is that an imposition on religious freedom?

Religious freedom is something a PERSON exercises by going to church, praying, raising their children in the church, reading the bible, and handling snakes. It doesn't come into play in BUSINESSES.

If you haven't, please read this post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Like I said earlier, you have the right to religious freedom. You DON'T have the right to use that religious freedom to discriminate against someone else.

Maybe. I"m not sure about that. Discriminatory beliefs may be protected.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Religious folks and same-sex-couple folks should have equal rights.

AGREED!

But if a same-sex couple owns a business, they cannot legally refuse to serve a religious person, because religion is a protected status.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: introvert
It should not be debatable.

But it is. Religious rights are protected. Forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs is an infringement upon their constitutionally protected rights.

Like I said earlier, you have the right to religious freedom. You DON'T have the right to use that religious freedom to discriminate against someone else.

So you have the right to religious freedom as long as you don't use it.

You consider using religion to discriminate against someone as the only way to use religion?

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?

There should never be any protected classes.

originally posted by: greencmp

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?

There should never be any protected classes.

Well that has shown to be unacceptable. Without protected classes then bigotry runs rampant.