Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

originally posted by: introvert
You're missing the point.

No, I get the point that both sides have on this. Like I said, it's tricky.
You can't take away the rights of one group in order to raise the rights of another.
That would be taking rights away instead of installing them.

a reply to: kaylaluv
????
do the owners of that business pay taxes??
ya??
well guess what probably more money now is being used to deliver that birth control coverage than would have been needed for them to just provide it for them! since well, I think that the responsibility then fell to the gov't to rig up a way for those employees to get it!!--- and the gov't is funded through the taxpayers!

a reply to: kaylaluv

Exactly. But I knew it would open the door for this kind of thing.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Because it is using the law to elevate yourself above others. Which is called inequality, something this country is supposed to be against.

So, you want to use law to do that very thing.

How can you not see the problem with that?

How is making sure that a minority class has equal rights elevating a class above another class?

First of all, you are saying that minorities belong to a different class than other people, I disagree.

Cut the philosophical crap. You and I both know that society creates the classes on its own. We self-segregate into groups automatically and use labels to self-label ourselves. It is part of being human. Whether I classify these people or not is irrelevant, we HUMANS are going to do it anyways. But just because we do that, doesn't give us the right to prevent other classes from sharing the same benefits and rights that we have.

How can equality be dictated in the first place much less by "elevating" a "class"?

It's called the Constitution. It dictates quite clearly that all men are created equal.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
How? .

I gave the information about the Catholic church as an example. It is against their religion to participate in, or encourage participation in, any 'sin' of homosexuality, birth control, etc. (that's the church's word, not mine). To take away the right of religious people to live their life and run their business according to their religious beliefs, would indeed be discriminatory against them.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
How is making sure that a minority class has equal rights elevating a class above another class?

If you take away the right of the religious person to run their life and their business according to their religious beliefs, then you have elevated the rights of others above the rights of the religious person to follow their religion.

It's a secular business. A legal contract. How does religion even fit in here? If a religious person doesn't want to operate in a secular manner, they should NOT open a business that serves the public.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
How is making sure that a minority class has equal rights elevating a class above another class?

If you take away the right of the religious person to run their life and their business according to their religious beliefs, then you have elevated the rights of others above the rights of the religious person to follow their religion.

They do not have the "right" to run their business according to their religious belief. That's the point.

They have the right to believe whatever they wish. That right ends when they are conducting business in the public sector as they are expected to serve everyone equally.

If its against your belief to make cakes for a gay wedding, find another profession that adheres to your belief.

a reply to: dawnstar

Oh I totally think the Hobby Lobby ruling was a bad one. I'm just saying it's a different situation then allowing public accommodation discrimination based on religious belief.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: greencmp

no but I am pretty sure that there are plenty of employees out there who have bosses that want them to lie quite often and well use the fear of loss of income to get their way!!

and well yes it should be illegal for any politician running for office to lie to the voters!! if caught they should be forced to resign and never be allowed to run for public office again!

Parents and family do the same thing as do friends and colleagues. Again, should the state threaten violence to curb that behavior?

For the record, I should point out that there is a vast chasm of difference between private employers and the state.

If the judicial system denied a particular group a fair trial I would assume we would all agree that that would constitute intolerable discrimination which would actually require legal redress. Does this example in any way resemble that circumstance?

I should add that I have gone a little off topic here, I am not a fan of using law to control non-violent behavior in society. I am just responding to the idea that any "social" legislation has any validity.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
But that's just it....they are not public accommodations....they are private businesses.

WHO is not a public accommodation?

Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions were exempt.

Source

Yes...they ARE asking them to directly participate, how are they not?

I'm sorry, that's a stupid question. They are not invited to the wedding. They are not going to be there. They are providing goods to a customer. Period. What that customer does with the goods is not their concern.

I understand the "public accommodation" term under the law.

And it's a stupid question? So how exactly are the couple supposed to get the flowers set up, or what about the caterer? Do they dump a truckload of flowers off or a few pots of food and tell them to set it up themselves? Yes....they are directly asking the businesses to participate in their wedding. If they are at the venue then they are participating, if their goods are at the venue, then they are participating.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: introvert
You're missing the point.

No, I get the point that both sides have on this. Like I said, it's tricky.
You can't take away the rights of one group in order to raise the rights of another.
That would be taking rights away instead of installing them.

You're not taking away someone's rights to raise another's. What we are saying is that a line must be drawn. Your rights end when it tramples on someone else's.

Like I said, if your religion says you can't make gay wedding cakes, you better find something else to do because you should be expected to serve anyone that walks in the door.

ETA: You didn't address the issue of the US government respecting one religion over the other. Do you agree that they should be able to do that?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Because it is using the law to elevate yourself above others. Which is called inequality, something this country is supposed to be against.

So, you want to use law to do that very thing.

How can you not see the problem with that?

How is making sure that a minority class has equal rights elevating a class above another class?

First of all, you are saying that minorities belong to a different class than other people, I disagree.

Cut the philosophical crap. You and I both know that society creates the classes on its own. We self-segregate into groups automatically and use labels to self-label ourselves. It is part of being human. Whether I classify these people or not is irrelevant, we HUMANS are going to do it anyways. But just because we do that, doesn't give us the right to prevent other classes from sharing the same benefits and rights that we have.

How can equality be dictated in the first place much less by "elevating" a "class"?

It's called the Constitution. It dictates quite clearly that all men are created equal.

Not according to you. You appear to be claiming that some people are not equal enough and need to be "elevated".

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
It's a secular business. A legal contract. How does religion even fit in here? If a religious person doesn't want to operate in a secular manner, they should NOT open a business that serves the public.

No, it's a business run under secular rule of law. And the secular rule of law protects the religious beliefs and practices and rights of the person running the business. There is nothing in secular law that says a person has to run a business in a 'secular manner'.

I'm a huge fan of secular rule of law. It protects the rights of the religious person and it protects the public from religions. But we should never forget, it protects the religious person as well.

a reply to: beezzer

I believe people can and will say anything to get their way. The problem here is that some religious people want to discriminate against same sex marriages based on a passage in Leviticus, while still wearing polyester, eating bacon and shellfish, and sporting tattoos. It's nonsense to use your religion to discriminate against others, especially when you are picking and choosing which portions of your religion to use to discriminate while ignoring others. The motivation here is basely transparent, and utterly un-Christ-like.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
How is making sure that a minority class has equal rights elevating a class above another class?

If you take away the right of the religious person to run their life and their business according to their religious beliefs, then you have elevated the rights of others above the rights of the religious person to follow their religion.

First off, that isn't a right. The Constitution says that you have the freedom of religion. There is no religious tenant telling you to discriminate against gay people with your business. In fact, all religious tenants on the matter tell you that you should be serving these people (do unto others... judge not... etc). So the argument that it is your religious RIGHT to discriminate is just a fallacy to begin with.

Second, the ability to do this was stripped away in the 1960's for Segregation. Without having done that, black people would NEVER be on the same level as white people. This is an undeniable FACT. It reasons (quite easily actually) that LGBT's would suffer the same fate as segregated blacks if these laws are allowed to stand. I care more about LGBT's living in squalid conditions and unable to visit many of the places everyone else in society is allowed to visit FAR more of a problem than some religious asshole's right to hate someone else and act on that hate.

Just be grateful that y'all are still allowed to even SPEAK hate speech. Europe has done away with that. Though don't think I'm necessarily for that, I'm just citing it as an example.

In 1999 a friend of mine married his domestic partner. They filed taxes as married filing jointly , insurance covered the spouse , everything that marriage entitles.No one denied them (as far as I know) any type goods or services. And believe it or not this is in the "Christian South". And , by the way ,they attended a church every Sunday. When did this change ? It was a state recognized marriage . Why is it now such a war on the subject ? I got it . It got pushed to let the government right a wrong that was never there. Thats when the great debates began.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Because it is using the law to elevate yourself above others. Which is called inequality, something this country is supposed to be against.

So, you want to use law to do that very thing.

How can you not see the problem with that?

How is making sure that a minority class has equal rights elevating a class above another class?

First of all, you are saying that minorities belong to a different class than other people, I disagree.

Cut the philosophical crap. You and I both know that society creates the classes on its own. We self-segregate into groups automatically and use labels to self-label ourselves. It is part of being human. Whether I classify these people or not is irrelevant, we HUMANS are going to do it anyways. But just because we do that, doesn't give us the right to prevent other classes from sharing the same benefits and rights that we have.

How can equality be dictated in the first place much less by "elevating" a "class"?

It's called the Constitution. It dictates quite clearly that all men are created equal.

Not according to you. You appear to be claiming that some people are not equal enough and need to be "elevated".

Which is true. Some people are less equal in this country than others. Do you deny this fact? Many of those same people actively have to battle legislation or intolerance from the populace that further divides their equality. Do you deny this fact as well?

If you take away the right of the religious person to run their life and their business according to their religious beliefs, then you have elevated the rights of others above the rights of the religious person to follow their religion.

a reply to: FlyersFan

and what if part of that business's religious beliefs is that women shouldn't be working unless of course their husband wants them to, should they be allowed to force all their female employees to bring notes in signed by their husband stating that they approve of their employment? and if one fails to bring such note in, should they also be free to fire their employees on that basis?
and what of the non-religious person who just doesn't want to hire this or that person based on their own individual beliefs, should they not be given the same protections on the basis they have no religious affiliations?

originally posted by: introvert
They do not have the "right" to run their business according to their religious belief. That's the point.

Actually they do. that's the point.

They have the right to believe whatever they wish. That right ends when they are conducting business in the public sector as they are expected to serve everyone equally.

They have a right to believe whatever they wish, and part of their belief is that they can not participate in, nor encourage, others to commit 'sin'. Homosexuality to these people is a 'sin'. So to force people to encourage homosexual behavior is indeed a sin and against their beliefs.

If its against your belief to make cakes for a gay wedding, find another profession that adheres to your belief.

That's your opinion. Now you are discriminating against religious people. The religious person can be a baker and run a bakery according to their beliefs. And the rest of us have a right to boycott that bakery if we don't agree with it's practices.

a reply to: FlyersFan

But I thought courts have ruled in the past that having religious beliefs didn't give you the right to discriminate against a protected group? Like, you can't use the curse of Ham to refuse service to a black person. That won't fly in the courts.