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.
If their religious beliefs call for them to arbitrarily discriminate fellow citizens, they shouldn't be operating a business that's open to the public.
So true. Conservative Christian bakers live in fear they may have to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, but the next day they may unknowingly sell candy covered cup cakes to a child molester, who uses them to seduce children. If they can't live with those possibilities, they shouldn't be in a business open to the public.
I support the right of states to enact such legislation (I also support the principles within the legislation, even if I support same sex marriage and would love to serve LGBT individuals in my own business, as I don't believe in, with a few exceptions, forced association between private parties), but I also support the right of others/states to boycott.
Ultimately, what I'm concerned most about is the misinformation campaign. The law in question, like the Indiana law, is not all that different from the laws in approximately 20 other states and the Federal government; if you want to search for the so-called floodgates opening to discrimination based on these laws, then I expect examples of such happening based on the previously laws (you're not going to find them for the most part). Sure, Senator Schumer claims that this law is different from the Federal RFRA. Of course, people like Schumer are disingenuous with their "distinctions."
For instance, they claim that:
1) Unlike the federal law, the Indiana bill explicitly protects the exercise of religion of entities, which includes for profit corporations.
However:
2) The bill's protection of religious liberty may be invoked not only when a person's religious freedom has been burdened, but also when it is likely to be substantially burdened by government action.
However:
3) The bill appears to allow using exercise of religion as a defense in judicial or administrative proceedings between private parties.
However, the Federal RFRA has already been interpreted this way by several Federal courts. Moreover:
I'm tired of the word "discrimination" being used to shut down critical thinking and debate regarding what something actually means and has meant.
I read most of the article. It's a bit drab; I found the proponents' arguments to be dismissive and vague, but nowhere did I find any indication of Schumer being disingenuous. Indeed, a critical thinker weighs all arguments, and finds himself in agreement, disagreement or both. Posting one side of an argument, while asserting the other side to be disingenuous, is another way to shut down critical thinking.
Of course you are. You conservatives love being on the wrong side of history. It's a badge of honor.
C'mon DD. History isn't over until Gabriel blows the proverbial horn. Or the Judgment Day comes, or the world blows up, or whatever!
Just because something may be deemed "wrong thinking" (or whatever) at the moment in time, doesn't mean it always will be. This just that old "bandwagon" appeal. Only time itself can really test the value of how an idea or a way of thinking will play out.
In any even, and a lot of people in the country are afraid to say what they really think for fear of being called a bigot, or a racist, or even lose their jobs. Or worse in some cases.
The PC bunch's definition of tolerance is believing whatever they do. To disagree is to be "intolerant" and intolerance is NOT to be tolerated! LOL
And yes, sometimes refusing to go along with the crowd or be cowed into silence just because a certain way or thinking is in vogue at the moment, IS a badge of honor. I always loved -- and totally agree -- with this column by the late syndicated columnist Joseph Sobran. Here it is along with selected excerpts:
(These people) don’t bother debating; they call me names...If I oppose state racial favoritism, I’m a “racist.†If I laugh at feminism, I’m “sexist.†If I criticize Israel, I’m “anti-Semitic.†If I consider homosexuality a perversion, I’m a “homophobe.â€
...I’m supposed to shrivel up (and shut up) when some fool calls me names, and meaningless names at that? In essence, such people are like members of a sect who abuse others in a sectarian vocabulary that means nothing to nonmembers... (s)uch invective has all the weighty authority of a teenage clique calling you a “square.â€...
For this reason I instinctively sympathize with people who refuse to be bullied into conformity with the Latest Thing. I admire the reactionary Catholic, the Orthodox Jew, the fundamentalist Protestant, the Mormon, the die-hard Confederate — anyone who has the guts to prefer a tradition to a compulsory modern fashion...
But anyway, although you and I disagree on many things, I am glad we have always done it in a civil and respectful manner!
You libs are gun shy and you sure can't talk us to death!
(You try though)
Meh...you conservatives do half the work for us.
Conservatives are long on mouth and short on results.
You guys couldn't stop the New Deal, Great Society, integration, women's suffrage, abortion, taking God out of schools, Obamacare, gay marriage, etc...hell, even drugs are on their way to becoming decriminalized. You couldn't privatize Social Security or close the IRS and the Department of Education.
You've got the House and the Senate, and got WEAKER! First time I ever remember that happening. Obama is kicking your party's ass, and Boehner has to run to Pelosi to get enough.votes to pass legislation.
The governor of Indiana just buckled, and we'll make sure that the one in Arkansas does too.
I mean really...you guys love to talk about how blacks are being had by the Democratic Party. But you conservatives vote for a party that rolls snake eyes so often that your party symbol should be tumbling dice rolling through poop.
I read most of the article. It's a bit drab; I found the proponents' arguments to be dismissive and vague, but nowhere did I find any indication of Schumer being disingenuous. Indeed, a critical thinker weighs all arguments, and finds himself in agreement, disagreement or both. Posting one side of an argument, while asserting the other side to be disingenuous, is another way to shut down critical thinking.
A 'critical thinker' would know better than to use the phrase critical thinker and Schumer on the same page.
I am just going to speak my piece and get out of this discussion, the likes of which always go the same way. So here goes...
It was as predictable as a sunrise that the opponents of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act would demagogue the issue by trotting out that old "Jim Crow" argument. Which has no relevance whatsoever. It is purely an emotional rhetorical ploy. The old segregation laws were mandated by the state itself and nothing in these laws mandate anything of the sort. It is apples and oranges, however effective it might be in posturing and presuming the moral high ground.
BUT...just so I cannot be accused of being a hypocrite? Yep, while I oppose true Jim Crow type laws, I firmly believe a privately owned business should be allowed to serve, hire, fire, etc. whoever they want.
For instance, if a black-owned business does not want to serve whites, then the state shouldn't force them to (why should it always be the other way around when these examples are presented?). Or if an Hispanic family owned business does not want to hire Asians? Or a gay owned business cater to straights and so on and so forth and by whatever combinations thereof? Well, it boils down to that they put up the money, take the risks, and have to live -- prosper or fail --, with the benefits and/or consequences of their decision. So it isn't -- or shouldn't be -- any of the state's business.
And by the same token? Those who feel they are being discriminated have every right to boycott the business, take out ads in the paper denouncing them as bigots or whatever, urge people not to patronize the said business, and so on. It is called the free marketplace of public opinion and voting with your pocketbook.
With that said though? The above type of discrimination went out of fashion long ago. And any business engaged in such practices would not stay open more than a month. They couldn't afford to just because few would enter to begin with, choosing to spend their money elsewhere. And other establishments in the same type trade, would likely capitalize by touting themselves as one open to everyone.
So again, all this nonsense touted by the hysterical left about returning to the 1930's is just BS, and really -- in many cases -- is indicative of how so many of them truly believe most Americans are -- at heart -- intolerant bigots who will not do the "right thing" unless they are shown the path to enlightenment by their "moral superiors"...and coerced by Big Brother, of course.
But what is going on here is not the same thing at all. No one is advocating throwing homosexuals out of restaurants or refusing them admittance into bakeries just on the grounds of their sexual orientation alone.
If the gay couple who filed the lawsuit to begin with (or those who might follow) had come in and simply ordered a wedding cake, and separately bought two male figures that they could privately adorn it with later, and left it at that, then almost certainly the owner would have been more than willing to do business with them.
But as I understand it, they made a big production about being homosexual and insisted the owner do the cake up from top to bottom. This was clearly an intentional "in your face" approach. The proprietor had religious objections to same-sex marriage -- as do many Americans -- and understandably refused to be a party to something that went against his deeply-held moral beliefs. And his constitutional freedom to peacefully practice his religion as defined its tenets.
But oh the *horror* that such an outdated constitutional concept could be *permitted* when it comes up against the demands of gay-activists on the grounds that *their* "rights" should be of paramount importance!
So bottom line is, for me, good for owner of the private business for standing up for his beliefs. And good for the state of Indiana for backing him on it (and the other states which have passed similar laws.
If that makes me an "intolerant homophobic bigot" in the eyes of the PC crowd (as if that means anything to me)? Then hey, too bad!
Now, without further ado? G'night and I'm outta here!
The business owner is having his right of association infringed upon, his freedom of religion infringed upon and his property rights infringed upon for the right to shop. I don't see the right to shop in the Constitution.
The business owner is having his right of association infringed upon, his freedom of religion infringed upon and his property rights infringed upon for the right to shop. I don't see the right to shop in the Constitution.
All I know is that unless it's a private membership club, if you can patronize it, I'd better be able to do the same. And I want the same treatment or BETTER than you're getting.
If that's infringing on a business owner's rights, then too darn bad. He needs to just shut the hell up and take the dollar. I'm not interested in his religion or his personal take on the issues of the day.
If your religion commands you not to have anything to do with homosexuals, how do you make sure you don't, especially in making sure you don't mistake a heterosexual for a homosexual?
People who strongly feel that must not have anything to do with homosexuals sure do stir up a lot of controversy.
Don't open to the public.
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.
First time I ever remember that happening. Obama is kicking your party's ass, and Boehner has to run to Pelosi to get enough.votes to pass legislation. 
