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.
It is not about cakes but I absolutely disagree with your premise about 'wedding cakes' that example tends to be used to trivialize discrimination against LGBT people; if you substituted 'black couple' for 'gay couple' very few people would sympathize with a baker who refused to serve a couple based on race.
Read the Feb EO, I posted it for you. If the new one is anything like that there are some real areas of concern.
Nope. It's all covered under the First Amendment. Don't like it? Work to amend the Constitution.
Quote:
It allows a federally funded religious foster care organization to refuse to care for a child if doing so "offends their religion".
The separation of church and state demarcation boundaries ship sailed a LONG time ago when federal funding was (and has been for a long time) given to private religious colleges/universities for research, etc.: Notre Dame, Georgetown, Emory (which works closely with the CDC in many medical fields), etc., are all private religious institutions that get federal funding.
Quote:
And the bathroom nonsense, trans people have been using the restroom that is appropriate for their physical appearance for as long as I can remember, this only became a big deal when North Carolina passed a 'papers please' law requiring people to prove their gender, everything that happened after that was a direct reaction to that crazy poorly thought out law.
Nope. You're flat out wrong. Anatomical males have NOT been using girls'/women's locker/shower rooms (or vice versa) at will for "as long as anyone can remember." A Pitt (state university) transgender but still opposite anatomical sex student was expelled for doing so, and Federal Court upheld the expulsion citing both the Constitution and Title IX law. I posted a link to the article earlier in this thread.
The articles say its essentially the same. And that the language is very very strong.
But gah...even in court, this is EXACTLY how you turn people on each other. And the possible ways it could be used by all the different religions. this is a bad idea. I will never vote R again. (and yes I have, even this last election)
Trump thrives on conflict. OF COURSE he wants to turn people against each other. It's how despots hold on to power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
To be honest I think this is the work of Bannon and Stephen Miller, I think they want to divide the Country so badly that people will have massive riots in the streets, then they can send in the National Guard and all their newly minted 15,000 ICE agents. Round us all up, get rid of the 1st amendment, criminalize peaceful protest, install martial law and cease all elections which of course will mean the end of democracy and ensure that our nation will be run in perpetuity by the Mercer's and the Koch's.
And no, I'm not crazy and I don't think I'm an alarmist. What is happening to us every day is so beyond the pale that to normalize it or expect a good result is extraordinarily naive and dangerous.
I don't think you are crazy at all. The alt-reich is capable of anything including your scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorman
This is what happens when people vote to put the American Taliban in power. This is only the first step in the creation of Christian Sharia law in the United States.
Yep. This will be tied up in the courts forever.
Christians no longer love - their entire worldview is based on anti-choice - anti- homosexuals. Period.
Nope. It's all covered under the First Amendment. Don't like it? Work to amend the Constitution.
The separation of church and state demarcation boundaries ship sailed a LONG time ago when federal funding was (and has been for a long time) given to private religious colleges/universities for research, etc.: Notre Dame, Georgetown, Emory (which works closely with the CDC in many medical fields), etc., are all private religious institutions that get federal funding.
Nope. You're flat out wrong. Anatomical males have NOT been using girls'/women's locker/shower rooms (or vice versa) at will for "as long as anyone can remember." A Pitt (state university) transgender but still opposite anatomical sex student was expelled for doing so, and Federal Court upheld the expulsion citing both the Constitution and Title IX law. I posted a link to the article earlier in this thread.
If you're a private entity, discriminate (non-violently) to your bitter little heart's content. I'll personally take my business elsewhere, but it is your right, so knock yourself out.
If you're a government agency or otherwise taxpayer funded -- sorry, but no. You serve the public, because you're getting paid by the public.
To those who support this religious liberty bill (that is, the language it likely has in it) -- are you OK with the fact that the rights this endows Christians with would endow Muslims with the same rights?
The Muslims are already gaining rights. Schools are closing for the observation of their Islamic holidays, that is just the beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
From my understanding of this it goes way beyond someone being able to not bake a cake.. I've read several interpretations of this and most agree that if enacted as written it would;
1) allow a federal employee to refuse to provide services to an LGBT person
2) allow a federally funded child welfare organization to refuse services to an LGBT child.
That's just wrong. I can't imagine that anyone's faith would be threatened by having to process a social security application for a gay person.
Actually, I don't see how anyone can understand something that has yet to be seen or heard. There is no way that your 1 or 2 would ever even be introduced. Select your media outlets more carefully for best results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
I am waiting to read the actual words to pass judgement. Just so you know what makes non-extremists willing to consider this a reasonable response to recent events:
A private citizen shouldn't to fined out of business because they don't want to make a cake for something they feel is in conflict with their religious beliefs. Or don't want to take pictures. Or sing. If they lose their business because word gets out that they are a bigot so no one wants to use their services, that's on them, it is the fining them out of business part that is wrong.
Other than in an immediate life-or-death situation, no one should be forced to perform an abortion if they feel it is murder. No one.
No one should be forced to share a bathroom or locker room with someone they feel is a gender different than their own. No one includes transgendered AND non-transgendered individuals. This is especially true of minors. It is infuriating that gender neutral, single user facilities are not seen as a reasonable compromise. And, yes, it will need to be the transgendered individual that uses the gender neutral facility, just based on numbers.
Government officials should not be able to claim religious exemptions to avoid doing part of their job, if they object they need to find employment outside of government, but private citizens and private businesses should be able to do so without government sanctions.
Excellent post, worth repeating. ^^^
Quote:
Originally Posted by YanMarcs
Muslims could spread their hatred to Christians and America...
Freedom of religion in times of Islamic uprising is an invitation to the implementation of sharia law.
Muslims are already doing that. They are pressuring schools, local governments and workplaces to observe their religious beliefs, for Muslims, government and religion are one. Out of fear of the Muslims and their violence, they are moving there agenda forward while liberals are watching the Christians and worried about cake baking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
It is not about cakes but I absolutely disagree with your premise about 'wedding cakes' that example tends to be used to trivialize discrimination against LGBT people; if you substituted 'black couple' for 'gay couple' very few people would sympathize with a baker who refused to serve a couple based on race.
Read the Feb EO, I posted it for you. If the new one is anything like that there are some real areas of concern. It allows a federally funded religious foster care organization to refuse to care for a child if doing so "offends their religion". It allows a Social Security employee to hang up on you rather than process your application for benefits if they decide that something about you offends their religiosity. This EO sound a whole lot like Mike Pence's failed "Religious Freedom Act" which in it's original form allowed restaurants to refuse to serve gay customers.
And the bathroom nonsense, trans people have been using the restroom that is appropriate for their physical appearance for as long as I can remember, this only became a big deal when North Carolina passed a 'papers please' law requiring people to prove their gender, everything that happened after that was a direct reaction to that crazy poorly thought out law.
I have complete respect for a person's religious beliefs but this is not a theocracy and this EO looks like that's what it is trying to turn it in to, and that offends me greatly
You obviously don't get the whole cake baking incident and Biblical law. Being black is not a sin, actually neither is being gay unless you act on those feelings, so big difference per the religious side which is the reason that the cake thing became an issue, the baker did not wish to be a participant in an act that was contrary to their beliefs, blessing of such a union.
When it comes to foster care, for the good of everyone involved, I don't think it would be fair to anyone to place a child, not of the same faith as the parents in the home.
Transgender? Yeah, well, they don't look like the gender they feel like most of the time and when they disrobe, most will really not look like the gender they feel like. Male and female are a biological reality, not "feelings".
I think the hype on this is something to talk about and try to use to condemn people before the rest deal gets out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
So your fellow Americans are upset that it will be legal for them to be discriminated against, and its "too bad".
What a revolting thing to say. What a horrible way to treat your fellow Americans.
And its not just those people, atheists would be fair game too.
There is no reason to believe anything that people in this thread have dreamed up as possibilities will even be the reality.
We are all too familiar with agendas and how innocent people are played in order to move them forward.
God gave man free will, so I say let them do as they please with it UNTIL it steps on my toes trying to make me accept it or be a part of something that I feel is immoral.
When you go out of your way to try to force someone to participate in what they believe is an immoral act, that is also discrimination.
There does need to be protections in place for both sides. Trying to put someone out of business, singling them out and they are doing it, to try to force them to comply is wrong. If one needs to have others normalize what they do, they need to look deeply at what they are doing.
So, this thread is based on "rumor" like so much else coming from the liberal side of the equation.
Trump and his alt right cronies are making it awfully hard for folks not to be ashamed to be an American. No doubt the courts won't let this blatantly discriminatory order stand. But still, the fact that the president would even try something so divisive says so much about where this country is headed.
Jesus! (No pun intended), you are worse than Trump with his Andrew Jackson Timelines.
Jesus has been dead for 2000 years, and he did not comment on ANYONE's marriage in the 21st century. Jesus preached love and acceptance for all. Christianity preaches to hate the sin, not the sinner.
Where do you get this stuff? Making up Jesus quotes, and bastardizing the bible. Guess I'll see you in hell.
I didn't say I believed it, I said they sincerely believe it. If I made cakes for a living I would happily make a wedding cake for a gay marriage, a polygamist marriage, a regular marriage, a pretend marriage, or any marriage you want, just as long as I don't have to see nude bodies. As far as I am concerned however consenting adults decide to live their lives is up to them as long as they don't insist I live that way too.
I don't have to agree with someone's beliefs to understand they have them and acknowledge that they are important to them.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
If you're a private entity, discriminate (non-violently) to your bitter little heart's content. I'll personally take my business elsewhere, but it is your right, so knock yourself out.
If you're a government agency or otherwise taxpayer funded -- sorry, but no. You serve the public, because you're getting paid by the public.
Amen. Exactly how I feel.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
This would certainly make some interesting conflicts for different religious groups. If your boss is Jewish can you be fired for eating a bacon cheeseburger at your desk? If someone is Muslim can they refuse to do work for you because they assume you drink alcohol? Can protestants refuse to serve catholics because of the pope issues? Can a surgeon who is a buddhist refuse to treat someone who is not a buddhist?
Wow do we get to go old testament too? Can we stone kids who are rude to their parents? Can we refuse to work with people who are adulterers? There are some serious rules about seafood in leviticus, can a teacher not interact with students who eat shrimp? It is abhorrent after all. This should definitely get interesting.
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.
