Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

originally posted by: FlyersFan
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.

The rule of law also protects the public in dealing with that business.

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.

How is legal discrimination protecting the public from the business owner's religion?

originally posted by: introvert
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.

By saying the rights of a same-sex couple to force themselves on a religious persons bakery in order to get a cake is a higher right than that bakers right to their religious beliefs and practices ... then you are indeed raising the same-sex couples rights to be higher than the religious persons.

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?

Sorry, it's a fast moving thread and I must have missed it. You'll have to expand on that because I"m not sure what you mean by the question. Thanks.

originally posted by: Gothmog
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.

As was hammered out in another thread, it appears to come down to the use of the word "marriage".

a reply to: 0zzymand0s
You and I think Leviticus laws are nonsense. But the religious folks with a bronze age thought process still adhere to them. It's their right to believe whatever they want. We aren't supposed to step on those rights.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?

Yes, I most emphatically deny that assertion.

Unless, that is, you mean that every person is not completely identical in their physical and intellectual capabilities.

People with Downs syndrome are unlikely to get graduate degrees, little people are unlikely to be star basketball players, etc. Should we use law and the threat of violence to correct that inequity?

a reply to: FlyersFan
What does "encourage" mean?, if you directly solicit the type of customer I could go with "encourage", someone coming in off the street on their own is just business..it's called capitalism/business/making money..isn't that the American dream.
It's sad to hear people make the stretch that selling a product/service make you part of the deal or complicent..that's bullsh#t, if that's the case why are gun manufacturers not complicent when their product is used to kill someone?
get over yourselves.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

Like you said, the Constitution says you have freedom of religion. And as I have said a dozen times, their religions say that they can't participate in, nor can they encourage, 'sin'. So to force them to bake a same-sex wedding cake or make flower arrangements for a same-sex marriage would indeed be a sin and go against their religious practices.

Just be grateful that y'all are still allowed to even SPEAK hate speech.

Back the truck up. Who is 'y'all' .... ???
You'd best not be including me in that.
I have stated clearly, I'm in favor of marriage equality.

a reply to: greencmp

No I am speaking about equality opportunity wise. You are delusional if you think that everyone in the country has 100% equal opportunities as everyone else.

originally posted by: greencmp
As was hammered out in another thread, it appears to come down to the use of the word "marriage".

This is true. Religious people don't want gay people using "their" word. They don't care if atheists, liars, fornicators, devil-worshipers, murderers, child molesters or lawyers us it, they just don't want gay people using it because homosexuality is a sin...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

No I am speaking about equality opportunity wise. You are delusional if you think that everyone in the country has 100% equal opportunities as everyone else.

So, you are saying that some minorities are incapable of contributing to society as significantly as some other groups?

a reply to: dawnstar
Can you tell me of any level headed person who would apply to work in such a place?

a reply to: kaylaluv
Talk to the supreme court.
Hobby Lobby ruling. Chick Fil A. Etc.
I don't make the rules. I'm just discussing them.


I'm waiting to see if someone can come up with a way to allow religious people to be able to keep their constitutional right to practice their religion AND a way for same-sex couples not to be discriminated against. If someone can balance that ...

originally posted by: FlyersFan
And as I have said a dozen times, their religions say that they can't participate in, nor can they encourage, 'sin'. So to force them to bake a same-sex wedding cake or make flower arrangements for a same-sex marriage would indeed be a sin and go against their religious practices.

Yet, they'll gladly make cakes for other sinners, like liars, fornicators, etc. and that's NOT encouraging sin?

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Like you said, the Constitution says you have freedom of religion. And as I have said a dozen times, their religions say that they can't participate in, nor can they encourage, 'sin'. So to force them to bake a same-sex wedding cake or make flower arrangements for a same-sex marriage would indeed be a sin and go against their religious practices.

But freedom of religion means that you also have freedom FROM religion. You have no right to impose your religion onto me or anyone else, which is EXACTLY what these people are trying to do. There is no enumerated right that allows the religious to impose their religious beliefs onto others. Discriminating for religious reasons is a violation of the first amendment.

Back the truck up. Who is 'y'all' .... ???
You'd best not be including me in that.
I have stated clearly, I'm in favor of marriage equality.

Great.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: greencmp
As was hammered out in another thread, it appears to come down to the use of the word "marriage".

This is true. Religious people don't want gay people using "their" word. They don't care if atheists, liars, fornicators, devil-worshipers, murderers, child molesters or lawyers us it, they just don't want gay people using it because homosexuality is a sin...

Yes, that's a fair assessment (minus the hyperbole which I am always a fan of ).

So, given that all of the benefits and punishments associated with "marriage" are reflected in civil unions (where they are legal which is the only issue of importance here), I can understand how religious people might feel as though they are being targeted.

a reply to: FlyersFan

They are not adhering to them though. They are just adhering to one of them. That's my point: they are liars.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

No I am speaking about equality opportunity wise. You are delusional if you think that everyone in the country has 100% equal opportunities as everyone else.

So, you are saying that some minorities are incapable of contributing to society as significantly as some other groups?

That is a way of wording it, yes.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I'm an undocumented handicapped person, meaning there's many things I cannot physically do but have no medical record to support that assertion. I would apply to any job that I thought I could do if it meant being able to have a roof over my head another month!!!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

No I am speaking about equality opportunity wise. You are delusional if you think that everyone in the country has 100% equal opportunities as everyone else.

So, you are saying that some minorities are incapable of contributing to society as significantly as some other groups?

That is a way of wording it, yes.

Is that not the definition of racism?

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: FlyersFan
What does "encourage" mean?,

According to the church document that I presented when asked 'where does it say in the church books .... " ... A Catholic can not participate in, nor encourage, 'sin'. that includes homosexuality and birth control. I would think 'encourage' is self evident. Assisting the people in the 'sin', giving public approval of the 'sin', etc.

get over yourselves.

Huh ???