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

[Kyriani]

I'm done speaking to you. If I wanted this debate I'd go speak to my seven year old cousin and even she seems to understand the basics at least. That you don't step into someone else's house and expect them to like you, accept you. Their business is their own. They might serve the greater public but they reserve the right to deny you service because they're not OWNED by the greater public.

You don't see me in some backwoods town that'd scoff at me and my homosexuality do you? No and you won't. Why? Because I have a choice and I've made mine with some level of wisdom versus this ridiculous notion of, "I'm a snowflake now fuck you and your inherent rights." Again, we're done here. You apparently paint the world with unicorns and rainbows, I just simply see it for what it is and try to be more reasonable/thoughtful of my expectations.

This is why I hate getting into these idiotic discussions to begin with.

That you accept this... that you think its ok for your local businesses to deny you access to service because of your orientation, that just doesn't make any sense to me. You say you choose not to live in some backwoods where you'd be discriminated against. But if you just let this go... if you actually support the law changing to allow discrimination on religious grounds, how long till it does start to affect you?

I agree with you on one thing. You and are done talking because we clearly have very different ways of seeing the world.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

So because you got owned, you are running with your ball and going home? Figures.

So what? Would you rather I sit here all day arguing in one big circle? There is so much logic within this thread it is mind blowing.

[Belize]

All you do is sit here with your short little quips and talk shit. You're one to speak.

I'm plenty open but I WILL rally to the defense of people I personally loathe if I feel like someone is crossing the line and there is fundamental, important reasons for this.

Deflections AHOY!

Please address the point about flipping the two terms. My guess is you can't, because it doesn't fit your view of the world.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Deflections AHOY!

Please address the point about flipping the two terms. My guess is you can't, because it doesn't fit your view of the world.

Your point didn't make sense to begin with, hence why I disregarded it and went straight to your ridiculous, hypocritical attack.

How about you stop deflecting and accept the fact that you want to play ref when you're nastier than the next person here.

[Belize]

however many it takes. Waffling in the legal system is more prompting to settle out of court anyway.

You go federal, the feds will open an investigation and levy fines as needed. Stripping the regulatory mandates of a business because of the actions of an employee is ridiculous. Say it's a McDonald's franchise and the dipshit at the counter is the bigot. The entire business should be fucked cause of this clown? You think any of that will go back to McDonald's corporate? You think anyone but the franchise owner and employees that aren't bigots are going to lose? The business owner can fire the fucker and things can go forward without having the state come in, take away their operating license or shut them down pending investigation.

If it's just one employee I agree, no need to involve anything but the employee, but if it's management who says "Nope, fuck this group of people because I have X belief" I absolutely think someone needs to step in and slap them around a bit.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

If it's just one employee I agree, no need to involve anything but the employee, but if it's management who says "Nope, fuck this group of people because I have X belief" I absolutely think someone needs to step in and slap them around a bit.

And what, that should be the strong-arm of the government?

[Belize]

Your point didn't make sense to begin with, hence why I disregarded it and went straight to your ridiculous, hypocritical attack.

How about you stop deflecting and accept the fact you want to play ref when you're nastier than the next person here.

How did it not make sense?

You say you want to protect "X religious group" from "Y other group" correct? Like Christians not accepting gays, or whatever example you wish to use.

But what about protecting "Y group of people" from "X religious group's discrimination"?

You don't want Y to enforce their, and I quote Special Snowflake Views, but you're enforcing your own Special Snowflake Views.

So please explain to me how it's different.

And what, that should be the strong-arm of the government?

Judicial system? I'm not advocating the mafia here.

[Kyriani]

I won't speak for Kelliak, but I will for myself, the punishment should fit the crime, and employing a bigoted cunt just isn't worth losing everything over. Maybe Im not as vindictive as you, I think getting the bigot employee fired is sufficient. Fines and fed investigation if the problem is deeper than a single employee, and most of all, I'll take my business elsewhere if I can, and if I can't I'll live without the petty service some bigot offers.

I'm not generally vindictive. I don't want someone fired.

Know what I want?

I just want to be able to shop at my local businesses without being turned away because the owner's religion doesn't approve of me.

I want to be able to rent an apartment without fear of being evicted because the landlords religion says I'm an abomination.

I want to be able to be able to get a job without fear of being terminated because the owner happens to be religious.

There's no religion I know of that says "It is wrong to give jobs to homosexuals", "It is wrong to provide housing to homosexuals", "It is wrong to sell goods to homosexuals", yet here we are and all of these things can and do happen in various states of the U.S. in the name of religion.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

How did it not make sense?

You say you want to protect "X religious group" from "Y other group" correct? Like Christians not accepting gays, or whatever example you wish to use.

But what about protecting "Y group of people" from "X religious group's discrimination"?

You don't want Y to enforce their, and I quote Special Snowflake Views, but you're enforcing your own Special Snowflake Views.

So please explain to me how it's different.



Judicial system? I'm not advocating the mafia here.

This is what I don't get. If you had an all-gay organization that didn't want anything to do with heterosexuals, it'd be the same situation. I'm not at all advocating the idea that only heteros can form a given religion and deny homosexuals service. It of course can be turned around, shoe on the other foot, etc.

I'm all about the individual right but there comes a point where two rights cancel one another out in my opinion. Not one simply overriding the other for reasons. If I have a business, unless it is publicly owned/traded, it is in fact my property. If I want to deny service to straight people, that is my choice and why should anyone be able to say otherwise ultimately?

At some point you're overriding someone's choice, someone's right, and absolving some very basic principles that make ownership a questionable concept in its entirety.

[Belize]

This is what I don't get. If you had an all-gay organization that didn't want anything to do with heterosexuals, it'd be the same situation. I'm not at all advocating the idea that only heteros can form a given religion and deny homosexuals service. It of course can be turned around, shoe on the other foot, etc. I'm about the individual right but there comes a point where two rights cancel one another out in my opinion. Not one simply overriding the other for reasons. If I have a business, unless it is publicly owned/traded, it is in fact my property. If I want to deny straight service people, that is my choice and why should anyone be able to say otherwise ultimately?

At some point you're overriding someone's choice, someone's right, and absolving some very basic principles that make ownership a questionable concept in its entirety.

If you had an all gay organization, and it provided a public service I would still hold the same argument that it's bullshit that they're discriminating against everyone else.

If it's a private club, fuck whatever just like church groups can go talk about how heterosexual they are all day. Not a care in the world.

But once you start providing a public server, you either serve everyone equally, (as long as your service applies, i.e. males can't go to OB/GYNs for obvious reasons) or you don't provide a service at all.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

If you had an all gay organization, and it provided a public service I would still hold the same argument that it's bullshit that they're discriminating against everyone else.

If it's a private club, fuck whatever just like church groups can go talk about how heterosexual they are all day. Not a care in the world.

But once you start providing a public server, you either serve everyone equally, (as long as your service applies, i.e. males can't go to OB/GYNs for obvious reasons) or you don't provide a service at all.

What if I have a private grocery store? It acts like a club, except you buy food and beverages in it. What then?

Seems like you're starting to get all-too specific. A private business is a private business. If a denial of services has led to injury, harm, etc - that's what courts are for. That said, most people would just move towards greener pastures versus deal with that nonsense.

[MMKing]

I think it's inappropriate for governments to legislate religious marriage between two people.

I think it's wrong to legally forbid two people to become ''legal spouses'', forming a formal contract between one another. Sometimes but not always including a child, produced by the two parties or otherwise.

I also think it's wrong for the state to enforce a private group of people to ceremonially wed two people, regardless of who they are. If you form a private organization and call it a religion, the government should have no say in who you allow into your club. Just as it is with private property, private organizations should be able to dismiss anyone for any reason or no reason at all. The inherent problem however is that the christian church in the US is receiving tax exemptions on the basis of being a religious organization. Despite the fact that the US government cannot legally recognize a religion according to the constitution.

So, make the church pay it's taxes just like any other organization or business. Then leave it the hell alone, it's then a private organization not funded by federal money and is to be considered private property.

TLDR: The federal and state governments should neither enforce nor prevent religious marriages between two people. But should be more open to allowing any two people of adult age to write a contract, making them legal spouses.

[Belize]

What if I have a private grocery store? It acts like a club, except you buy food and beverages in it. What then?

Seems like you're starting to getting all-too specific. A private business is a private business. If a denial of services has lead to injury, harm, etc - that's what courts are for. That said, most people would just move towards greener pastures versus deal with that nonsense.

No such thing as private business, it's nonsense.

Again, within reasonable boundaries, you can't deny membership to someone based on sexuality (everything else is protected). I'm not saying to accept men to women's only knitting club, or in your example, women's only store, but you cannot deny membership/access based on someone's sexuality.

The greener pasture argument is the same one used during segregation. "Oh, it doesn't hurt anyone we don't accept blacks here, they should just go to the stores that accept them!". Same exact mentality.


EDIT: Also, exclusive stores exist. It's called Costco, and they sure as hell allowed to refuse members based on picky attributes like sexuality.

[Ossandran]

All it takes is one person mentioning it. I know this seems all sorts of ridiculous to you. That my scenario is silly and couldn't possibly happen, but allowing businesses to discriminate CAN be damaging to people. There's no good reason to allow it other than to make one person feel superior and another person feel inferior AND be denied access to service.

It's wrong. If you can't see that I don't know what else to say.

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 are exempt.

Why does that law need to be changed to let such businesses discriminate? What is gained? Who is harmed? Is the religious person harmed by having to sell their goods to the gay person? NO THEY ARE NOT. But the gay person is harmed by not being allowed access to goods. Alternatives are not always available and they shouldn't have to "prove their a good person" to the owner to be allowed to shop. The very notion is preposterous.

No, I can see where you're coming from.

I think you're an asshole if you refuse to sell someone an apple or fix their car just because they're a homosexual. I don't think however if you disagree with gays marrying that you should lose your certifications or be shut down. I'm not very adept with the fine points of the law system, I'm not even sure if it's legal to refuse service to homosexuals. I think it's a very complex situation or not black and white any way.

On one hand you have people who have a code (religion or otherwise) that tells them that homosexuality is wrong. On the other hand you have normal people who happened to be attracted to the other sex. At this moment in time, it has not been proven that being gay is not a choice. There is evidence to support either side of the coin. Religions/codes are clearly a choice however.

I don't think people who are striving to always do the right thing are going to deny services to gay people because the right would be to show kindness to all people. I grew up in the bible belt and I was taught as a child that you should love your enemy. Hatred will only bring more hatred. I think doing the right thing applies to all people, though. I'd like to say that I'm not a religious person myself.

We're not discussing morality here, though. We're discussing legality. Some businesses may voice an opinion that they do not support/encourage/accept homosexuality. It seems to me like the law trying to be passed would prevent states from revoking licensing and etc.. and I agree with that 100%. Having an opinion should not hinder you from operating. If the people truly disagree with a businesses stance the way to fight it is to boycott them.

Refusing service, though. I'm not so sure about it. I do believe bakeries/caterers should not have to decorate cakes in a way that makes them uncomfortable or participate in an event that would make them uncomfortable. Any business that refuses other services though (apples, car repair, etc..) should be fined. I don't think arrests or closures are an appropriate way to deal with that.

I agree with you, you shouldn't have to prove to someone that you're a good person. I think we should all strive to be the best we can, though. Especially if you're trying to change peoples opinions. :-)

I liked how Chic Fillet handled the shit storm they were in. The one near me was very professional about it.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

No such thing as private business, it's nonsense.

Again, within reasonable boundaries, you can't deny membership to someone based on sexuality (everything else is protected). I'm not saying to accept men to women's only knitting club, or in your example, women's only store, but you cannot deny membership/access based on someone's sexuality.

The greener pasture argument is the same one used during segregation. "Oh, it doesn't hurt anyone we don't accept blacks here, they should just go to the stores that accept them!". Same exact mentality.

I disagree and I'm done here. This is getting circular again.

[rayden54]

Different thing, same goal = freedom to discriminate.

On all fronts. My freedom vs your freedom. Your discrimination against my discrimination.

If both religious belief and sexual orientation are to be protected, then you're going to have to deal with it when they clash. Most people are too blind to see past their own point of view though.

Should I be able to deny you food at a McDonald's, no? Should I be able to refuse to make you a wedding cake (if my religion disapproves of your union), YES. Why? The latter is a tacit approval of your union which the government should not be able to force.

I think it's inappropriate for governments to legislate religious marriage between two people.

I think it's wrong to legally forbid two people to become ''legal spouses''

[...]

TLDR: The federal and state governments should neither enforce nor prevent religious marriages between two people. But should be more open to allowing any two people of adult age to write a contract, making them legal spouses.

Most of the "legal spouses" part is covered under civil unions. I was specifically told by an advocacy group (admittedly not a wide representation) that that's not good enough. It's marriage or nothing.

IMO, all legal marriages should be civil unions. If you want to have a priest marry you fine. Maybe given religious authorities the ability to instigate the legal contract.

[Belize]

I disagree and I'm done here. This is getting circular again.

Disagreeing doesn't make you right.

Opinions aren't a good argument.

Guess you don't have anything good to back up your point. Like I thought. It's how these discussions always end.

"Why is forcing your religious view on someone ok, but them forcing their view on you not ok?" " Because I said so, we're done."

[Kyriani]

Sure there are: Islam and Christianity come to mind.

Please show me where in either of those religion's holy books it specifically says: "It is wrong to give jobs to homosexuals", "It is wrong to provide housing to homosexuals", "It is wrong to sell goods to homosexuals"

I'll wait.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Disagreeing doesn't make you right.

Opinions aren't a good argument.

Guess you don't have anything good to back up your point. Like I thought. It's how these discussions always end.

"Why is forcing your religious view on someone ok, but them forcing their view on you not ok?" " Because I said so, we're done."

All of your statements are opinions. All of your viewpoints are opinions.

You're combating opinions with opinions and then crying and insulting me when I decide that this is going nowhere and want to bow out peacefully with a simple, "I disagree."

So what does it take for a guy to back out of a stupid fucking conversation without getting sniped at by the local gutter troll on his way through the door? This really does get old. I can see where you get your 6k post count! Clearly by arguing with people in a circular fashion for pages on end and then goading them to stick around when they want to be done with it all.


[Infracted]

[Belize]

All your statements are opinions. All of your viewpoints are opinions.

You're combating opinions with opinions and then crying and insulting me when I decide that this is going nowhere and want to bow out peacefully with a simple, "I disagree."

So what does it take for a guy to back out of a stupid fucking conversation without getting sniped at by the local gutter troll?

Saying that you can't discriminate based on sexuality/race isn't an opinion.

Saying that "Private businesses" don't exist and if you offer a public service, you can't pick and choose isn't an opinion.

"Local gutter troll" Oh that one I actually haven't heard before. Huh. Hey, if you want to back out, you might want to stop answering. Clearly you still have things to say.