Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think anything resembling discrimination like that should be downright completely illegal, period, especially for any company larger than a handful of employees. If we're talking one anti-gay individual who bakes and sells cakes or something, it's not as big of a deal, maybe some kind of law could figure out where to draw the difference, between abhorrent and illegal.
But, "Georgia Power has the right not to serve electricity to homes with interracial marriages, and it would just be a really bad business decision". No, it would be a horrendous act of direct harm against those affected. At some point, any right of a private entity to discriminate, can't exist, because of a civil right that everyone surely has to goods and services and being treated with basic dignity and decency in a public setting.
Libertarianism and private property rights are fine, but they need to be balanced against individual rights as appropriate. This is similar to how I feel about no smoking ordinances (I agree with them). You can have second hand smoke in your home, but you can't deny your customer's rights to breathe smoke-free air, just because you own the establishment. All in all, it's a balance.
Let me clarify my idea. This act couldn't legaly allow discrimination but would serve as a basis for religious freedom. Let's say something wants to discriminate based on religious beliefs. They would simply go to court and would lose due to existing laws. (Also there's the fact that Christianity does not condone discrimination). It would be killing to birds with one stone, we have a religious freedom law that protects religious beliefs, and that law legaly cannot be used to discriminate other groups. ( Also just as a question, In what world would Georgia Power be able to refuse a public service?)
It's their decision, and in this day and time would be a horrible business decision and they would run out of business and open the door for more accepting businesses.
True. But I heard a pretty compelling argument. What if there's a gay person in rural Georgia and all businesses decide to prohibit sales to him/her. Then what? It's not like a new and accepting business is going to move into podunk Georgia. So does that person then have to uproot their life in order just to go to the store?
It would be killing to birds with one stone, we have a religious freedom law that protects religious beliefs, and that law legaly cannot be used to discriminate other groups.
Ok, then what's the point of such a law? Protecting whom exactly, from what exactly? Because it seems obvious that this "Religious Freedom" stuff = "Right for a business to discriminate against homosexuals".
Quote:
( Also just as a question, In what world would Georgia Power be able to refuse a public service?)
In Senator Josh McKoon's ideal world. They could become a Christian-ran power company, and have a "religious freedom" to conduct business according to their homophobic interpretation of scripture.
It's an extreme example, but we need to be very careful of any law that would allow a business to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, made-up or otherwise. Gets into very dangerous slippery slope territory.
[quote=primaltech;42735695]Ok, then what's the point of such a law? Protecting whom exactly, from what exactly? Because it seems obvious that this "Religious Freedom" stuff = "Right for a business to discriminate against homosexuals".
QUOTE]
It would be a law to protect people from practicing their religious beliefs and not be forced to go against them. I'm not sure exactly what it would be used for today, but it wouldn't hurt to have the extra protection. In theory the bill itself isn't bad, just the excuses people would use to discriminate. (Just remove the hidden motives.) Think of this than more of a Christian Bill and apply it to any religion.
Edit- Also, I agree that my first post wasn't smart, but has to be some reasonable way to give both sides what they want. I definitely wouldn't want huge businesses discriminating, but I also don't want to see religious rights violated. I think as long as these religious rights don't infringe on others, the bill should be passed.
Ok, then what's the point of such a law? Protecting whom exactly, from what exactly? Because it seems obvious that this "Religious Freedom" stuff = "Right for a business to discriminate against homosexuals".
It would be a law to protect people from practicing their religious beliefs and not be forced to go against them. I'm not sure exactly what it would be used for today, but it wouldn't hurt to have the extra protection. In theory the bill itself isn't bad, just the excuses people would use to discriminate. (Just remove the hidden motives.) Think of this than more of a Christian Bill and apply it to any religion.
Edit- Also, I agree that my first post wasn't smart, but has to be some reasonable way to give both sides what they want. I definitely wouldn't want huge businesses discriminating, but I also don't want to see religious rights violated. I think as long as these religious rights don't infringe on others, the bill should be passed.
What if one's religion says that the white race has supremacy over other races? Should those people have a right to discriminate based on their religion? I know you said that most people supported civil rights in the 60s but that isn't true - a large portion of the country DIDN'T support equality for everyone and that's why the Civil Rights Act was passed. If most people supported civil rights then there wouldn't have been a need for government intervention.
Bottom line - it doesn't matter who someone is or why they are being discriminated against...it only matters that it's happening. No matter what your views are or how you see it, discrimination based on a long list of things is wrong. Period. No religious interpretation of the Bible should make it okay...many/most Christians don't believe that gays should be discriminated against.
It's their decision, and in this day and time would be a horrible business decision and they would run out of business and open the door for more accepting businesses. This is different from the Civil rights era because many people agreed with the discrimination, today even most religious people wouldn't support such a practice. Even then I can see this act backfiring on the very people in support of it. Their judge could interpret their religion as accepting to all people and make them accept all customers. Then they would be quiet and we wouldn't be hearing about bills like this one anymore.
Actually.... Most didn't hence "minorities"
Though out history the "majority" discriminated against the "minority" simply because they're the majority that doesn't justify discrimination.
Historically most did agree with discrimination that's why so many where outside the little rock school of the little rock nine. That's why it took the Civil Rights Act and the federal government.
There a phrase victim of time, if society is ignorant often people can't help but to be ignorant if that's the world they was raised and know.
I don't fault the individual for being ignorant as much as the social construct.
For The Salem Witch trials to happen most of the town had to believe in it. This would not happen to today not cause people are better but society is better.
Who to say if we was born back then we wouldn't be ignorant like them and if they was alive now they wouldn't be more rational. So yes the majority can make bad discussion.
I get what your saying your neutral but there really no neutral ground on this. don't be fool to thinking this some how enhance freedom for religious people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by demonta4
It would be a law to protect people from practicing their religious beliefs and not be forced to go against them. I'm not sure exactly what it would be used for today, but it wouldn't hurt to have the extra protection. In theory the bill itself isn't bad, just the excuses people would use to discriminate. (Just remove the hidden motives.) Think of this than more of a Christian Bill and apply it to any religion.
Edit- Also, I agree that my first post wasn't smart, but has to be some reasonable way to give both sides what they want. I definitely wouldn't want huge businesses discriminating, but I also don't want to see religious rights violated. I think as long as these religious rights don't infringe on others, the bill should be passed.
Their is no religious rights being violated, Some one exercising their religion is a very different thing from trying for force it on, or to discriminate against others. that's the error.
Group get rights though individual rights not collective rights.
This bill gives rights to the "collective" to discriminate against individuals
Other wise this no longer making religion to the individual personal choice but rather social to force on others.
This use the right to discriminate card, Calling something a right to disguise discrimination.
example the civil war was over "State rights"......... state right of what? slavery.
Religious right to what? to discriminate to some one not your religion,
This also raised questions like
1) how is the state to determine what's a religion so people can't just start discriminating randomly to what ever they believe and declare it a religion?
2) Wouldn't the state deciding what is and what not a religion to have "religion freedom" violate separation of church and state?
Let me clarify my idea. This act couldn't legaly allow discrimination but would serve as a basis for religious freedom. Let's say something wants to discriminate based on religious beliefs. They would simply go to court and would lose due to existing laws. (Also there's the fact that Christianity does not condone discrimination). It would be killing to birds with one stone, we have a religious freedom law that protects religious beliefs, and that law legaly cannot be used to discriminate other groups. ( Also just as a question, In what world would Georgia Power be able to refuse a public service?)
That's totally absurd. You go to a store to buy Groceries, and the owner refuses you due to Religious reasons, and you SIMPLY got to Court and then you can eat? Are you serious?
People already have Religious Freedom. Your Free to choose any Religion you like. You just don't have the right to try and force it on me by punishing me for not accepting your Religion and following its teachings, which is exactly what you would be doing.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA-Senate Bill 129) being pushed by firebrand conservative activist Georgia state Senator Josh McKoon may be one of the hottest issues in Georgia state politics right now....But an even bigger controversy is erupting over the proposed First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) being pushed by Georgia state Senator Greg Kirk, a former Southern Baptist pastor from Americus in rural South Georgia.
There's also a bill (House Bill 756) being pushed by Georgia state Representative Kevin Tanner (R-Dawsonville) that would allow business owners to cite religious beliefs in refusing goods or services for a “matrimonial ceremony” (intended to allow business owners to explicitly refuse service to same-sex couples getting married).
There's also a bill (House Bill 757, the "Pastor Protection Act") being supported and pushed by Georgia House Speaker David Ralston (R-Blue Ridge) that would make clear that no religious leader, organization or body can be forced to perform wedding ceremonies or allow their facilities to be used for events (weddings and otherwise) that they do not agree with.
HB 757 (the Pastor Protection Act being pushed by Speaker Ralston) is meant to be a compromise in the ongoing Religious Liberty debate and is seen as having the best chance of passage and is almost certain to pass since it is being pushed by House Speaker as a less-intense alternative to the 3 other Religious Liberty bills being proposed. HB 757 also has very little, if any opposition from marriage-equality supporters who say that it is not their intent to force same-sex weddings on religious organizations and bodies that do not want to perform them.
The other 3 Religious Liberty bills seem to have much more opposition at this point in time, particularly from the dominant Metro Atlanta business community which has come out very strongly and forcefully against the bills.
Georgia Governor Nathan Deal expressed his support for passage of SB 129 (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) early last year as long as the legislation exactly mirrored that of the federal RFRA passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993....But the momentum for passage of SB 129 seemed to fall apart very late in the 2015 session of the Georgia General Assembly when a skeptical coalition of Republican moderates and Democrats put anti-discrimination language onto the bill....An action that upset supporters of the bill and had them hurling accusations that the anti-discrimination language was "a poison pill" that "gutted the intent" of the legislation.
Governor Deal also seemed to publicly back away from the proposed legislation after the severe public relations backlash and resulting political fallout that happened after the State of Indiana passed and signed into law their much broader RFRA bill in late March 2015 at the behest of their socially conservative governor, Mike Pence.
Despite the building opposition from the business community and many moderate voters, at this point in time, SB 129 (the proposed Georgia RFRA) has a somewhat decent chance of passing if the supporters of the bill are willing to accept the anti-discrimination language that was added to the bill by GOP moderates and Democrats at the end of last session....Governor Deal said that he would sign the bill, but that was before the Indiana RFRA fallout.
The other 2, more controversial bills (FADA and HB 756) have a tougher (but not impossible) path to passage at this point in time because the business community opposes them because they are thought to allow discrimination not just against LGBT individuals but also against other people in a much broader swath of society for religious reasons (single, unmarried, cohabitating and divorced individuals; people of other religions, etc).
HB 757 (the Pastor Protection Act that Speaker Ralston is backing) was meant to placate the supporters of SB 129 (RFRA), but the backlash to last June's Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage has been much more intense, particularly with extreme intensity of the 2016 Republican Presidential Primary in which Georgia is poised to play a central role in during the "SEC" Primary on March 1st.
While the 4 proposed Religious Liberty bills don't seem to have an overwhelming amount of support in the 5 core counties of the Atlanta metro area (particularly inside of the I-285 Perimeter), the pressure is intense and building for the state legislature to pass and sign into law a strong legislative response to last summer's nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage by the Supreme Court, particularly with 2016 being one of the most heated election seasons that has been seen in awhile.
The Georgia Senate (the more conservative of the 2 houses of the Georgia Legislature) is expected to pass all 4 bills, with (like I wrote earlier) HB 757 (the Pastor Protection Act) expected to pass easily. While the other 3 bills are expected to have some trouble in the Georgia House of Representatives (the more moderate of the 2 houses of the Georgia Legislature)....Though a consensus may to form to pass SB 129 (RFRA) if the anti-discrimination language is allowed to remain in the bill by the bill's supporters.
There will be building pressure by Georgia's politically dominant bloc of social conservatives to pass either one or both of the other 2 more controversial bills (FADA and HB 756)....There will also be attempts to 'sneak' the legislation into law by attaching it to another bill very late in the session (as is common practice in the closing days and hours of the Georgia General Assembly)....Though business community opposition to these two most controversial Religious Liberty bills is expected to remain strong throughout the remainder of the 2016 session of the Georgia General Assembly.
Stay tuned....
Last edited by Born 2 Roll; 01-24-2016 at 01:39 AM..
I'm not sure exactly what it would be used for today [...] Just remove the hidden motives
that is entirely the purpose of the bill. there is no "extra right" that any religious group or individual would gain, as religious freedom is covered under the first amendment to the country. because those proposing the law are conservative christians, this is primarily designed so that conservative christian wedding companies can refuse to supply to non cis-heterosexual weddings.
the only purpose this bill can serve is allowing businesses to deny people service based on religious reasons. it doesn't matter who would be using the law or for what reason, their actions and this law would directly contradict the supreme court's rulings on the 14th amendment.
There's also a bill (House Bill 757, the "Pastor Protection Act") being supported and pushed by Georgia House Speaker David Ralston (R-Blue Ridge) that would make clear that no religious leader, organization or body can be forced to perform wedding ceremonies or allow their facilities to be for events (weddings and otherwise) that they do not agree with.
i think this would be an appropriate compromise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
