Bobby Jindal plans to issue an executive order enforcing intent of religious freedom

[Itisamuh]

This seems like a good thing to me.

[Calfredd]

This seems like a good thing to me.

That he didn't want to compromise on rape and incest pregnancies or that he backed down and allowed them?

[Paranoid Android]

So Jindal is basically ordering Sharia Law. Good job Republicans, the party of "small" government and people's personal freedoms.

[Laila]

(watch all the way to the end)

[Paranoid Android]

Sadly you only get a few claps, because that guy just shitted on their religion and how it can be used just as much for intolerance.

[zorkuus]

So Jindal is basically ordering Sharia Law. Good job Republicans, the party of "small" government and people's personal freedoms.

The republican party is pro small government like the mafia is pro witness protection program.

[Laila]

Sadly you only get a few claps, because that guy just shitted on their religion and how it can be used just as much for intolerance.

Yeah, there's always going to be people on the wrong side of history, but so far it always ends up right. Slavery, women's rights, racial segregation, etc. Same arguments are made over and over again, and they're always wrong, but society as a whole always ends up on the right side.

[Paranoid Android]

I truly hate that people who use religion as their argument. I really don't care wtf your religion tells me, please don't try to say "your religion is better than my religion/beliefs". Maybe my religious belief is that everyone has to get gay married. I really don't care who you marry its not hurting me at all.

My last point is that I have more respect for people who are just plain bigots or homophobes. The people who use religion again to force what they believe on me are the worst.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, there's always going to be people on the wrong side of history, but so far it always ends up right. Slavery, women's rights, racial segregation, etc. Same arguments are made over and over again, and they're always wrong, but society as a whole always ends up on the right side.

Yes we have always been progressive as a whole, especially since the turn of the 20th century. People fight, but progressive movement does always win out. I just hate seeing people getting discriminated against for: 1) ignorant reason 2) whoever a person marries has no affect on you, whatsoever.

[dextersmith]

"Worship me" says some nonexistent guy.

[Korgoth]

On one side you have people who do not want to do something because it will make them feel bad, and on the other you have people who want the government to force the other people do that which makes them feel bad because if they do not do that, then these people will be offended.

So in this situation one side is going to come out hurt, so how can it be that people are arguing against the side that will be forced into labor by the government? How are we as a society not arguing that people should be understanding of each other's differences and cultures, and accept that they might not want to work with you, for you? Be willing to let them have that and move on.

But no, we can't have that, that society where people just accept that their neighbors will see differently on things, and not try and use the government to force them into doing things they do not want to. Nope, because people have to be bigoted, need to be bigoted, whether its against gays or religion. Gotta have someone to hate!

[Belize]

"Worship me" says some nonexistent guy.

But don't be Gay, that isn't ok. If you are you will be discriminated against.

[breadisfunny]

Just how many brainless hicks are there in Louisiana?

it's said they stretch on for miles and miles.....from horizon to horizon sea to shining sea.

[saucywench]

There seems to be a disconnect, gay people can be religious and they could argue this intent of religious freedom act prevents them for exercising their religious freedoms as well. Whenever something like this is designed its based around what is considered the "One True Religion" Christianity, but what of all the other religions? Now we have to start quantifying all the possible religions and their scenarios of moral conflict...criminy what cluster. Why can't people just focus on the positives and practice respecting each other - put more effort into making the world a better place instead of segregating.

[Felya]

This will continue until someone has the resources to force people to prove their religious beliefs in court.

[Korgoth]

This will continue until someone has the resources to force people to prove their religious beliefs in court.

Because that will be any better than a rich person forcing gay people to prove its not a choice? Where is the science on that?

Or we can just be tolerant and accepting of others and not try and force the Catholic baker into making gay wedding cakes.

[Felya]

Because that will be any better than a rich person forcing gay people to prove its not a choice? Where is the science on that?

We already have laws against fraud in marriage. If laws are based on religion, you open religion to court inquiry. Just like a faux marriage being fraud, so is faux belief in religion.

Or we can just be tolerant and accepting of others and not try and force the Catholic baker into making gay wedding cakes.

You can have weddings without a marriage license. A wedding can and does happen, without a marriage license. Gay marriage being recognized by government has nothing to do with weddings...

Edit: If you have to be religious to deny service, your religion is now the subject of court inquiry. Unless everyone can deny everything based on any reason, each instance of what I bolded becomes a requirment that can be questioned in court.

[Endus]

Because that will be any better than a rich person forcing gay people to prove its not a choice? Where is the science on that?

Or we can just be tolerant and accepting of others and not try and force the Catholic baker into making gay wedding cakes.

You're saying "Catholic" as if that's why they're refusing to make those cakes.

It isn't.

That refusal is based on them being outright hateful homophobes, which is in no way derived from their religion. That deserves as much "tolerance and acceptance" as being a racist.

[Felya]

You're saying "Catholic" as if that's why they're refusing to make those cakes.

It isn't.

That refusal is based on them being outright hateful homophobes, which is in no way derived from their religion. That deserves as much "tolerance and acceptance" as being a racist.

Yep, bringing religion into it, only puts religion into court. But, because religion is such a touchy subject (the point of this), people seem to have a blind spot for it. If a law requires a specific clause (religion) to permit an action, that clause's merit becomes debatable in court. Something that is unconstitutional when it involves religion...

[Korgoth]

You're saying "Catholic" as if that's why they're refusing to make those cakes.

It isn't.

That refusal is based on them being outright hateful homophobes, which is in no way derived from their religion. That deserves as much "tolerance and acceptance" as being a racist.

That is not true, you only see it as such because of your own enormous bias. They have their bias too. Yet we have to force them into doing labor they do not wish to do because your bias demands it?

That is evil.

[Endus]

Serious question. I buy the premise that either way, someone gets their feeling hurt.

I disagree that this is relevant.

On the one hand, we have people who want the right to make free and open decisions, for themselves, and themselves alone.

On the other, we have people who want to deny those freedoms to others.

The former is a position based on personal rights and liberties. The latter is not. Your personal rights do not extend to forcing anyone else to abide by them.