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

[Felya]

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.

Good luck proving which religious belief is without bias in court.

[Endus]

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.

Nobody is "forcing" them into doing any labor. Their choice to run a public business is a free and open choice they have made. Nobody obliged them to do so. You're just factually wrong, there.

And, as I detailed above, your religious rights do not, in any way, extend to affecting other people's religious (or areligious) decisions in their own way. If you're going to try and argue that an anti-gay-marriage Christian sect should be able to legally enforce their views on the entire population, then I'm sure you'll be fine with an extremist Muslim sect being instituted instead, and having those Christian sects outlawed completely. Because it's no different. The role of government is not to pick a religion and enforce it on everyone else. Religious freedom is about everyone being able to freely practice whatever religion they wish to, not some mythical right to force others to abide by your religious rules.

I'm not biased on this, in any way, except in favor of personal liberty and freedom from oppression and bigotry. And if that's a "bias", it's one I'll freely admit to, gladly. I'm not even anti-Christian; I almost went into seminary, myself, and I've taken religious study courses in college. I'm against hateful bigotry. That's it.

[Korgoth]

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.

Yes, and in this case those people who want to deny freedom to others are YOU. You want to deny a baker the right to refuse a job that he doesn't want because doing so would make him uncomfortable. You want the government to destroy his business if he does not comply with your wishes. Why can't he have the right to make free and open decisions about his business, about the work he chooses to do?

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody is "forcing" them into doing any labor.

Bullshit. Its either do this job, or the government will shut you down for not doing the job, and the person you didn't do the job for will now get to take whatever money you have left.

[Bighud44]

This is why we need federal inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected class.

Then laws like these will be superseded. And, I think, after marriage, that is what the LGBT community and our allies will fight for.

So a Muslim can refuse to sell you alcohol on the basis that its against their religion to do so, yet a Christian cant refuse on the basis of their religion? Guess tolerance only works if your a Muslim and or in the LGBT community...All others get a big FU...

[Tastyfish]

This is why we need federal inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected class.

Then laws like these will be superseded. And, I think, after marriage, that is what the LGBT community and our allies will fight for.

No we don't. We don't need to be a protected class. Thats the anthisis of equality.

What, "We" need is, to stop wasting time trying to change the minds of people who can't have their minds changed.

The law should be the same for everyone, period.

[Felya]

So a Muslim can refuse to sell you alcohol on the basis that its against their religion to do so, yet a Christian cant refuse on the basis of their religion? Guess tolerance only works if your a Muslim and or in the LGBT community...All others get a big FU...

What are you talking about? I hope it's not that bullshit story about a Muslim not serving alcohol, which turned out to be due to the clerk being under age, not Muslim. I've had plenty of Muslims sell me alcohol and even pork...

[Kujako]

So a Muslim can refuse to sell you alcohol on the basis that its against their religion to do so, yet a Christian cant refuse on the basis of their religion? Guess tolerance only works if your a Muslim and or in the LGBT community...All others get a big FU...

It's almost as if you don't understand the difference between not offering a service at all (such as alcohol) and denying services you DO offer based on bigotry or other reasons.

How about if you don't want to sell cakes, you don't offer a cake selling service?

[Endus]

Yes, and in this case those people who want to deny freedom to others are YOU.

False.

You want to deny a baker the right to refuse a job that he doesn't want because doing so would make him uncomfortable. You want the government to destroy his business if he does not comply with your wishes. Why can't he have the right to make free and open decisions about his business, about the work he chooses to do?

Those are not rights the baker has. Those actions infringe on the rights of his potential customers, which is where it crosses a line.

Same way you don't have the right to kill people who annoy you, because your right to take that action contradicts their right to their life. Rights end where the rights of others begin.

It's no different than requiring that same baker to serve black customers the same way they would white customers. Them being racist is not a defense.

Bullshit. Its either do this job, or the government will shut you down for not doing the job, and the person you didn't do the job for will now get to take whatever money you have left.

Because "the job" is "serving the public". Not "that part of the public you aren't bigoted against".

If you don't want to operate a public business, then don't.

[Bighud44]

Yes, and in this case those people who want to deny freedom to others are YOU. You want to deny a baker the right to refuse a job that he doesn't want because doing so would make him uncomfortable. You want the government to destroy his business if he does not comply with your wishes. Why can't he have the right to make free and open decisions about his business, about the work he chooses to do?

- - - Updated - - -



Bullshit. Its either do this job, or the government will shut you down for not doing the job, and the person you didn't do the job for will now get to take whatever money you have left.

100% AGREE...It has always been "believe in what I believe in. Tolerate my views and lifestyle, but I dont have to tolerate yours." in the LBGT community. I can care-a-less who you want to marry, live with or have sex with, but dont preach that I'm a bigot for not tolerating your views and lifestyle but yet you are not for not tolerating mine.

[Korgoth]

I agree, I do not think one is a rational "hurt"... but I agree that either party will be hurt emotionally.

I do not think it is relevant to the discussion, when it comes to law though.

Rational or not they would be hurt. If performing an action causes hurt, and the outcome of not doing that action causes hurt, then why have the law mandate that action be done? Why should the law be attempting to force someone into doing an action that causes them harm, instead of inaction that causes offense?

In a free society, the law should always favor inaction over action in a dispute where both options results in someone going away unhappy.

Favoring forcing the action, taking away freedom of choice, only makes sense if you want to see one side win.

[Endus]

No we don't. We don't need to be a protected class. Thats the anthisis of equality.

It wouldn't be "gay" as a protected class, it would be "sexual orientation". It would protect every orientation, equally, so it would be "equal", not a special class restricted to a few.

Much the same way that "race" is a protected class, rather than "being black".

[Felya]

Yes, and in this case those people who want to deny freedom to others are YOU. You want to deny a baker the right to refuse a job that he doesn't want because doing so would make him uncomfortable. You want the government to destroy his business if he does not comply with your wishes. Why can't he have the right to make free and open decisions about his business, about the work he chooses to do?

How does a marriage license do any of this?

Bullshit. Its either do this job, or the government will shut you down for not doing the job, and the person you didn't do the job for will now get to take whatever money you have left.

Explain how a marriage license changes this. You are spreading bullshit about service, that is in no way dependent on a marriage license.

[Endus]

Rational or not they would be hurt. If performing an action causes hurt, and the outcome of not doing that action causes hurt, then why have the law mandate that action be done? Why should the law be attempting to force someone into doing an action that causes them harm, instead of inaction that causes offense?

A man not being able to murder his cheating ex-wife causes "hurt", in the same completely ridiculous sense that you're using.

It doesn't mean murder should be legalized.

[petej0]

So a Muslim can refuse to sell you alcohol on the basis that its against their religion to do so, yet a Christian cant refuse on the basis of their religion? Guess tolerance only works if your a Muslim and or in the LGBT community...All others get a big FU...

If a muslim didnt want to serve alcohol due to their religion then they shouldnt own or work at a business that serves alcohol.

This is a case of Christians following parts of the bible they choose to follow. If baking cakes for sinners was so bad, they would deny service to more then just gay people.

[TirielWoW]

Speaking as someone from Louisiana,

"It's Bobby Jindal. What the hell did you expect?"

[Korgoth]

A man not being able to murder his cheating ex-wife causes "hurt", in the same completely ridiculous sense that you're using.

It doesn't mean murder should be legalized.

That is the most bullshit comparison yet. That man is attempting to perform an action that causes harm, he is not attempting to simply not do anything, inaction, as I was referring too. He might claim it would cause him hurt, but the law choosing inaction over action, sides with his ex wife who simply does not want to do anything.

Also the amount of harm in being turned down by a business in most cases is barely above taking offense at it.

[Tastyfish]

It wouldn't be "gay" as a protected class, it would be "sexual orientation". It would protect every orientation, equally, so it would be "equal", not a special class restricted to a few.

Much the same way that "race" is a protected class, rather than "being black".

And?

Race is a protected class?
I never noticed as a cis white male. :P
Don't we divide up "race" to determine what race is more protected? Yes, and it propigates racism as a result... but hey Race is a class!





And to be devils advocate here, do you not understand why people like that even do shit like this? It's just exploitation of minorities to begin with.

[Felya]

In a free society, the law should always favor inaction over action in a dispute where both options results in someone going away unhappy.

This invalidates every single law in existence. It's absurd...

[Belize]

If a muslim didnt want to serve alcohol due to their religion then they shouldnt own or work at a business that serves alcohol.

This is a case of Christians following parts of the bible they choose to follow. If baking cakes for sinners was so bad, they would deny service to more then just gay people.

On the other hand, if a Muslim owned a restaurant and didn't want to serve alcohol, they could because they'd be denying it to EVERYONE EQUALLY.

If a Muslim didn't serve alcohol, but only to people with blue eyes is when it crosses the line. Just like Christians denying service to JUST gays.

[Kujako]

I do not think either should be a right (not selling you alcohol).

So what... everyone regardless of profession should be forced to sell alcohol? That would require us to all have our own stock, so why would we need to buy it?