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

[Sky High]

Right now.
Being popular isn't a freedom, guy.

never said it was, padre.
granted Louisiana isn't on theists that blocks atheists from holding office. but there are several. and you still ignore the fact we are talking about religious people trying to exert their views on the populous. which flies in the face of your previous statements.

[Baelic]

You must not be familiar with law, especially U.S law, if you think that not specifically stating it means they can't.

Uh, actually, yes it does. While yes laws are generally "interpreted" this is quite clear that it only relates to those who "believe that marriage is between a man and a women."

Again, pointless law is pointless. Besides, I could take it one step further and say that the US constitution already protects religious freedoms.

[Hitei]

Yeeeeeeah. That's not "freedom" in any reasonable sense of the word.

Oh. okay.
I was confused because I though being able to move wherever you want, whenever you want in order to better your life was a freedom. My apologies.

never said it was, padre.
granted Louisiana isn't on theists that blocks atheists from holding office. but there are several. and you still ignore the fact we are talking about religious people trying to exert their views on the populous. which flies in the face of your previous statements.

You did though.
You implied that you are not free to run for Governer of Louisiana as an Athiest. There is nothing stopping you from putting in the effort and doing so because you are athiest. You aren't going to win, because you're never going to get the popular vote in a state who's views completely clash with your own. But freedom isn't people agreeing with you.

We are talking about religious people who don't think they should have to condone something they disagree with. Not that they can go out and beat down homosexuals in the streets or force married couples visiting Louisiana to get a divorce. It is an act allowing abstaining, not active objection.

[Sky High]

We are talking about religious people who don't think they should have to condone something they disagree with. Not that they can go out and beat down homosexuals in the streets or force married couples visiting Louisiana to get a divorce. It is an act allowing abstaining, not active objection.

their business does not involve the personal lives of people who are only interacting with them for the services they provide. they don't have a say so they have no room to bitch about it. and no, skip all that other drivel and it's just that, an active objection. for shit that doesn't even effect them IN ANY WAY. it's petty, and I hope they go out of business because they are shitty business owners.

as for the rest, I simply made the mistake of mentioning LA, when in states like... Texas, Arkansas, and south Carolina. I would not be unelectable because the law PROHIBITS me from holding office, not that I would be unpopular. clearing that up for you.

[Lenonis]

I was confused because I though being able to move wherever you want, whenever you want in order to better your life was a freedom.

Only in the most strictest sense of the term. It is akin to saying that middle eastern woman have the freedom to move to western culture, or that slaves had the freedom to flee to the north. It's a way of minimizing the wrongdoing of those being oppressive by putting the onus on the victim. I don't accept that as a valid defense.

We are talking about religious people who don't think they should have to condone something they disagree with. Not that they can go out and beat down homosexuals in the streets or force married couples visiting Louisiana to get a divorce. It is an act allowing abstaining, not active objection.

They want freedom to discriminate, not freedom of religion. If you need any further proof just go to Indiana where they are protesting the added language to the freedom of religion bill prohibiting it being used for discrimination.

Can we pleeeeeeeeeeease stop pretending that any of these laws are being crafted in good faith? No pun intended...

[Ripster42]

Seeing as the USA elected Bush (twice), I don't think intelligence matters in that race.

I just don't see what it has to do with brainless hicks in LA specifically. Why narrow the scope?

[Kyriani]

We are talking about religious people who don't think they should have to condone something they disagree with. Not that they can go out and beat down homosexuals in the streets or force married couples visiting Louisiana to get a divorce. It is an act allowing abstaining, not active objection.

No it's using religion as an excuse to treat those on the "not approved" list poorly. Being religious is not some license to discriminate. No matter how "deeply held" your beliefs, you don't get to tell someone else that their relationship is somehow less worthy than yours. That, because they are different, they need to have less freedom than you do. And don't try to spin it otherwise. That's EXACTLY what you're saying. You are saying that because a lot of people in an area are religious, that it should be ok for them to discriminate against others, if not to force them to conform, then to drive them out of the state. Screw that.

Here's a reminder for the religious folk out there that think its ok to treat someone else poorly because they don't conform to their specific religious rules:

[Hitei]

their business does not involve the personal lives of people who are only interacting with them for the services they provide. they don't have a say so they have no room to bitch about it. and no, skip all that other drivel and it's just that, an active objection. for shit that doesn't even effect them IN ANY WAY. it's petty, and I hope they go out of business because they are shitty business owners.

as for the rest, I simply made the mistake of mentioning LA, when in states like... Texas, Arkansas, and south Carolina. I would not be electable because the law PROHIBITS me from holding office, not that I would be unpopular. clearing that up for you.

You're right. Good thing they aren't trying to interfere in those personal lives. They are trying to control the services that they provide.

Do you have a source for these apparent religious requirements?

INSTALLATION OF GOVERNOR; TERM; ELIGIBILITY. The Governor elected at the general election in 1974, and thereafter, shall be installed on the first Tuesday after the organization of the Legislature, or as soon thereafter as practicable, and shall hold his office for the term of four years, or until his successor shall be duly installed. He shall be at least thirty years of age, a citizen of the United States, and shall have resided in this State at least five years immediately preceding his election.

Only in the most strictest sense of the term. It is akin to saying that middle eastern woman have the freedom to move to western culture, or that slaves had the freedom to flee to the north. It's a way of minimizing the wrongdoing of those being oppressive by putting the onus on the victim. I don't accept that as a valid defense.

What a complete absurd comparison.
Slaves and middle eastern women aren't actually free. I don't know how you can possible compare these two things.
There is literally NOTHING stopping a person from moving to a different state, or even a more liberal town in that state. Homosexual people don't have dogs and lynch mobs running them down. They don't have husbands who can legally have them stoned to death.

Can we pleeeeeeeeeeease stop pretending that any of these laws are being crafted in good faith? No pun intended...

Laws are what you do with them.
I personally believe that private business owners should be able to deny service to whoever they want for whatever reason they want, short of denying emergency medical treatment to someone in danger of dying. And if the largely conservative state of LA wants to not be forced to perform marriages for homosexual couples, then whatever. Again, why even live in a place where you blatantly disagree with all the people around you?

[Sky High]

You're right. Good thing they aren't trying to interfere in those personal lives. They are trying to control the services that they provide.

so, you condone this kind of discrimination?

Do you have a source for these apparent religious requirements?

INSTALLATION OF GOVERNOR; TERM; ELIGIBILITY. The Governor elected at the general election in 1974, and thereafter, shall be installed on the first Tuesday after the organization of the Legislature, or as soon thereafter as practicable, and shall hold his office for the term of four years, or until his successor shall be duly installed. He shall be at least thirty years of age, a citizen of the United States, and shall have resided in this State at least five years immediately preceding his election.

the laws are on the books, just not enforced.

[Arewn]

If you have deeply held beliefs that marriage is between one man and one women, then follow that belief yourself. Go for it. Have at thee. Don't marry a man if you're a man. Don't let the peckers touch. No vagoo on vagoo action for you.
But that's no excuse to butt your head into other people's lives and dictate who they can and cannot marry. Marriage is an institution that both pre-dates most religions (Catholicism being the one in question here for the most part), and exists parallel to religion. There are marriages sanctioned by several different denominations of the same religions, by different religions entirely, and by non-religious institutes. You can have a non-religious marriage, so religion is not an excuse to deny those who don't share your belief.
Plus, there are churches that are okay with it and do gay marriages. And those churches who don't usually (this can vary) aren't forced to perform gay weddings if they don't want to.

It is absolutely inane nonsense to claim Catholics are being discriminated against if you allow gay marriage, as if the church owns marriage or something.

[arandomuser]

I dont get it, if you ask a christian, do you think gay people should be stoned to death, im sure most will say no, ask them if they will burn in hell for eating seafood they will say no....then they arent real christians hence discriminating against gays is pointless.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/08/dark_passages/?page=full

look at all of these passages in the bible, and unless christians want to also enforce and impose those biblical laws... i dont think a gay person eating a cake should be there problem.

[Hitei]

so, you condone this kind of discrimination?

Absolutely, read below.

the laws are on the books, just not enforced.

Are you going to link proof?

No it's using religion as an excuse to treat those on the "not approved" list poorly. Being religious is not some license to discriminate. No matter how "deeply held" your beliefs, you don't get to tell someone else that their relationship is somehow less worthy than yours. That, because they are different, they need to have less freedom than you do. And don't try to spin it otherwise. That's EXACTLY what you're saying. You are saying that because a lot of people in an area are religious, that it should be ok for them to discriminate against others, if not to force them to conform, then to drive them out of the state. Screw that.

I'm saying that because someone believes something, they shouldn't have to act in a way contrary to that belief for the benefit of others.

If I am a Jewish shop owner and three neo-nazis walk into my store talking about how Jews are human garbage, I don't think I should have to sell anything to them. If I am a feminist shop owner and a guy walks in wearing a t-shirt that says "Women were born to be raped", I don't think I should have to sell anything to him. And if I'm a conservative christian, and two guys walk into my shop holding hands and kissing, I don't think I should have to sell anything to them.

It's a matter of freedom. Nearly all laws protect the freedom of someone and infringe upon the freedom of others. What makes a law "freedom" or "discrimination" is what side of the fence you are on.

Sure, if such a law passes, a homosexual couple may no longer have the "freedom" to shop in a privately owned shop that's owner disagrees with homosexuality.

And if such a law doesn't pass, a religious shop owner will no longer have the "freedom" to not serve people who's beliefs they disagree with.

If you have deeply held beliefs that marriage is between one man and one women, then follow that belief yourself. Go for it. Have at thee. Don't marry a man if you're a man. Don't let the peckers touch. No vagoo on vagoo action for you.
But that's no excuse to butt your head into other people's lives and dictate who they can and cannot marry. Marriage is an institution that both pre-dates most religions (Catholicism being the one in question here for the most part), and exists parallel to religion. There are marriages sanctioned by several different denominations of the same religions, by different religions entirely, and by non-religious institutes. You can have a non-religious marriage, so religion is not an excuse to deny those who don't share your belief.
Plus, there are churches that are okay with it and do gay marriages. And those churches who don't usually (this can vary) aren't forced to perform gay weddings if they don't want to.

It is absolutely inane nonsense to claim Catholics are being discriminated against if you allow gay marriage, as if the church owns marriage or something.

They are though. That's the whole problem.
Under current law if you own, say, a wedding planning business and are conservative, and refuse to plan a wedding for a gay couple, you are breaking the law by discriminating against gay couples--and can be sued for that.

Again, they aren't arguing that all Gay Marriage ever should be illegal, they are arguing that they shouldn't have to condone it. I.e. they shouldn't be forced to perform the marriages or offer private services to gay couples.

[Kyriani]

Absolutely, read below.


Are you going to link proof?



I'm saying that because someone believes something, they shouldn't have to act in a way contrary to that belief for the benefit of others.

If I am a Jewish shop owner and three neo-nazis walk into my store talking about how Jews are human garbage, I don't think I should have to sell anything to them. If I am a feminist shop owner and a guy walks in wearing a t-shirt that says "Women were born to be raped", I don't think I should have to sell anything to him. And if I'm a conservative christian, and two guys walk into my shop holding hands and kissing, I don't think I should have to sell anything to them.

It's a matter of freedom. Nearly all laws protect the freedom of someone and infringe upon the freedom of others. What makes a law "freedom" or "discrimination" is what side of the fence you are on.

Sure, if such a law passes, a homosexual couple may no longer have the "freedom" to shop in a privately owned shop that's owner disagrees with homosexuality.

And if such a law doesn't pass, a religious shop owner will no longer have the "freedom" to not serve people who's beliefs they disagree with.



They are though. That's the whole problem.
Under current law if you own, say, a wedding planning business and are conservative, and refuse to plan a wedding for a gay couple, you are breaking the law by discriminating against gay couples--and can be sued for that.

Again, they aren't arguing that all Gay Marriage ever should be illegal, they are arguing that they shouldn't have to condone it. I.e. they shouldn't be forced to perform the marriages or offer private services to gay couples.

There are no rules in any religious text I've read where it says "thou shalt not sell cakes to the gays".

And even if there were? NO. Regardless of religious beliefs, you don't get to discriminate who can use your services if you are a public business. We have something call Public Accommodations Law. You can refuse service on the grounds of a customer being disruptive but you cannot refuse service because your religion says "these people are icky".

Within U.S. 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. However, in 1984, the United States Supreme Court declared the previously all-male Junior Chamber International, a chamber of Commerce organization for persons between the ages of eighteen and thirty-six, to be a public accommodation, which compelled the admission of women into the ranks.

What that means in plain English is, your religion means squat if you're a public business. You aren't allowed to say "we don't serve your kind here".

Being hired to bake a cake for a gay couple is NOT the same as condoning their existence. I say existence instead of behavior because being gay is not a behavior. It is a biological fact of life for a consistent percentage of the population over thousands of years. Replace homosexual with say African American, or Left Handed, or Red haired, and its still the same level of discrimination. Your religion doesn't make it "ok". And the fact that you think that treating other human beings in that manner is justifiable at all, puts your religion's moral position into question in my opinion.

[Xar226]

Fairly obvious based on the last two fucktards that ran for president for the Retardicans in the last two elections. If intelligence mattered, the majority of American politicians wouldn't have jobs.

I'm a liberal. I didn't find McCain or Romney to be unintelligent. I didn't agree with either of them politically, but that's hardy the same thing.

My main problem with McCain was, well, Sarah Palin, and my main problem with Romney is that I had no idea what he truly stood for. If he had been the moderate he was as governor of Massachusetts he would have deserved my consideration, but instead he assured me he was severely conservative and didn't believe in any of those moderate things he did and I was just left wondering if he stands for anything at all other than being for being elected president and against somebody else being elected president.

The infamous Chris Christie comes to mind.

One thing I'll give Christie: I like that he answers the questions that are asked. I despise the crap where a politician gets a question, waves his hands and then gives his canned response about the nearest topic he has talking points for.

I personally believe that private business owners should be able to deny service to whoever they want for whatever reason they want

That's an incredibly dangerous precedent. Would black people in the south be able to sit at a lunch counter in present day if we hadn't been able to deny that discrimination? Do you think most of them would have had the means to just move someplace nicer, and to manage a living there?

I think we have this idea in our head that there's always an alternative, so who cares? Guy won't bake your gay wedding cake? Fuck 'em, next baker will! But that's not necessarily true, and life isn't as simple as "we'd totally hate to prohibit somebody from discriminating, so just move if you live in a place that wants to discriminate against you." Do they have a job or decent job prospects in this new utopia? Do they have family in Discrimination Valley that they love and want to be near? Do they have the money to make a move potentially many states over? Do they have the money to live in those states?

We shouldn't condone something if we wouldn't condone it if it were universally true. "Discrimination is okay because somebody out there won't discriminate" is a bad idea.

Your argument essentially boils down to the idea that "this town doesn't want you here, boy" is an attitude that society should accept. I certainly won't ever agree with that.

[vindicatorx]

"Fuck it, if we can't get this passed legally we will just bypass that whole legal system"

[Kyriani]

"Fuck it, if we can't get this passed legally we will just bypass that whole legal system"

That tends to be the Republican answer to everything these days.

[Masark]

Do you have a source for these apparent religious requirements?

Arkansas constitution, article 19, section 1

No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Mississippi constitution, article 14, section 265

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina constitution, article 6, section 8

The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina constitution, article 17, section 4

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee constitution, article 9, section 2

No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state

Texas constitution, article 1, section 4

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

All of the above were struck down in 1961 by Torcaso v. Watkins, but are still in the respective constitutions.

[Puremallace]

Original post updated. He issued the executive order.

[Flutterguy]

where I live sure, that isn't shared throughout the country. let me know when I (an atheist) can run for public office in a state like Louisiana.

If you're a resident in Louisiana you can run for public office as an Atheist. There's no law against it.

[apepi]

If you're a resident in Louisiana you can run for public office as an Atheist. There's no law against it.

No law, but will people vote for you is a different probelm all together.