Jump to content
270soft Forum

Religious Protection Laws/ LGBT anti-discrimination Laws


Recommended Posts

What are your thoughts on the types of laws?

The non-discrimination laws are unconstitutional because this causes buisness owners to have to violate their religious beliefs (like in the cases of bakeries). There needs to be a national religious protection law or amendment to the Constitution making it illegal to force buisnesses to serve/ provide a service for people that have a lifestyle that goes against the religious views of the owners. Buisnesses must be protected against discrimination and their 1st amendment rights need to be protected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The problem is, this debate leads to very biased opinions, because either one's private lifestyle or one's religious beliefs either way have to be declared a "greater" freedom to protect than the other. Once you start declaring that one person's freedom is "more important" to protect than another's in an inherent manner, you start the process of arbitrarily stripping those freedoms by playing demographic bases against each to justify it as a form of salami tactic. THAT is something that should be avoided at all costs, no matter what your personal opinions on anyone's given freedoms may be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot force someone to violate their religious beliefs because they are protected through the 1st amendment. Those laws also lead to discrimination and targeting of Christian buisnesses. Religious rights have to be protected because they are guaranteed by the Constitution. If the people want a cake, then they can go to a different bakery, but these court rulings that force Chistians buisnesses to pay heavy fines because they followed their beliefs are outrageous and unconsitutional rulings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually, to be fair, don't recall a single verse in the Bible (and I did read it a lot as a child) that insists that Christians not do business with or associate with those that don't follow the tenets of their religion, or to persecute or marginalize such people. In fact, I distinctly remember such quotes as, "judge not lest ye be judged," "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." So, maybe I'd be in favour of protecting people's religious beliefs moreso IF they were actually following their religion properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Patine:

It also says judge people based on their actions. These buisnesses are serving gays. There do not put up no gays signs. But, it is baking and catering a cake to a gay wedding which they do not accept as marriage. And, then they get heavily fined. That is unconstitutional You can esily cherry-pick verses like you can cerry-picky stats. But, you need to know the context behind them. These businesses are not saying to kill these people, they are just not serving a wedding cake to a gay wedding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for making bigotry illegal. I think businesses that discriminate should be liable to fines and possibly courtroom actions. I don't think anyone should be discriminated against whether they are a white, Christian, conservative or a black, athiest, libertarian. I'm for most freedom of speech, but just how one cannot yell fire in a movie theatre, I think discriminatory actions are just as dangerous for society.

The bigot bakers should be:

1) Sent to court to determine the severity of the discrimination. If found guilty...

2) Fined

3) Must go to mandatory psychiatric treatment for their obvious mental condition

4) A sign must be placed outside their business, similar to those that some child molesters must have outside their houses.

5) They must apologize to the person(s) they offended

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so by doung that vcczar, you are being what you think are against. You are against the Constitution as well. The government cannot force their beliefs on others by destroying other people's religious beliefs. That is unconstitutional. The government cannot force someone to violate their beliefs. Also, gays are guilty of discriminating against Christian buisnesses. They target them because they want the big bucks. The government fining people outrageous amounts for following their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. So your position is actually non-accepting and unconstitutional. You want everyone to have the same position as you or they will be heavily fines and put out of business. This is intolerance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, I'm joking; although, I would like the bigot bakers to be treated for their mental illness . I was going to add "revoke the business person's right to vote" and "forcibly place their children in a same-sex foster home."

But really, I think that the anti-discriminatory laws that make it illegal to discriminate in hiring and firing decisions should be carried on to the customer base. No discrimination. This means a Christian customer cannot be discriminated against for their views, just as much as a gay person, Muslim or KKK member should not be discriminated either. A business is not an individual, it is in the public sphere. As such, it must treat the public equally.

I don't think religion should be able to trump just law. I don't think creating such a law to protect all customers is unconstitutional. It can be made invoking my favorite part of the constitution, "the necessary and proper clause." I love the elasticity of our constitution, which is why it is a document that works and why our country is great.

I do think the government can cause someone to "violate" their beliefs. Although, I don't believe discrimination is a Christian tenant, but rather the reverse. The discrimination you talk of is Satanic if anything. If one has a religion that encourages polygamy, cannibalism or jihad, then it can be curbed by the government. Discriminatory religious practices for a business should be curbed by the government. This hypothetical would not be in place because they are in Christians, it would be in place because they are bigots. This law would affect Athiest bigots, Christians bigots and Jewish bigots, etc, to protect the customer from discrimination. It would be an entirely just law and an improvement for society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The government cannot force someone to violate their religious beliefs. That is unconstitutional because the 1st amendment does not allow it. I am greatly affended by your comments. Chirstians are not bigots. We follow our religion. Christianity has been around longer than the US, longer than France. You cannot just try to change our beliefs because you do not like them. The government cannot force owners to violate their beliefs. Religious beliefs have to be protected because they are protected by the 1st amendment. If a religion teaches jihad against the US, that is different. That is threatening the US and you should be considered a terrorist. You should loose your rights as a terrorist. Cannibalism is another example. It looks like polygamy will be excepted because of a lawsuit. It is illegal to murder someone. These are TERRIBLE examples that have nothing to do with this case. The government cannot force people to violate their beliefs by making a cake for a gay wedding which they oppose. The gay people are the ones that are targeting these businesses and discriminating against them. The government is wrong. The government has no authority to do this because it does not hurt anyone. These laws are unconstitutional. The government is not allowed to force their beliefs on other people and this is exactly what they are tying to do. The government and the supporters of these laws/ruling are trying, with the threat of fines. to forcefully change these peoples beliefs which is wrong and unconstitutional.

Resorting to personal attacks and attacks on religion just show that you have no argument. The Constitution defeats all your arguments. The Constitution protects religious freedom and by the government forcing someone to violate their beliefs, then that is not letting someone freely practice their religion.

Christians and their beliefs have been around way longer than the US, so the US and state governments cannot force what they think on Christians. You attack Christians, but they have been around way longer than the Constitution, the state constitution, the magna carta, and way before you. You cannot force your beliefs on others. The government cannot force their beliefs on others. This is unconstitutional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right Christians are not bigots, but bigots are bigots, regardless of their religion. The bakers, and anyone that finds their behavior acceptable, are bigots. I'm not resorting to personal attacks, I'm just pointing out bigots and telling you how I think the government ought to deal with deviant behavior, such as bigotry. Plain and simple. Luckily, most Christians are not bigots.

Again, I am not attacking Christians. I am attacking bigots. You assume I'm launching some sort of war against a religion. I'm launching a war against one action, bigotry, which exists across human beings. However, I do think that bigotry cannot be accepted due to a supposed religious protection of that deviant action. Bigotry is so at odds with Jesus, that I can't even conceive of why any Christian would endorse it. That's not Christianity, that's Satanism cloaked in the name of Christianity.

I see no violation of the Constitution for anti-Bigotry laws, the first amendment is not a protection for damaging behavior and bigotry does hurt people. Acting on bigotry, as those done by the baker, is a form of terrorism. All Christians are not bigots, only some. All bigots are terrorists if they act on their perverted thoughts. I'm not even gay, but I can't stand idly by as business people with an antiquated mindset treat good American citizens unequally. It would be one thing if the gay couple were rude, stealing,using overt sexual behavior in the shop or doing something that would eject any person from a business, but it was not.

Hopefully, the Democrats will pass an anti-bigotry law when they win in 2016.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are launching a war against religion. People have religious views. These bakeries are serving gay people. It is gay weddings that they do not do. This is because it goes against their beliefs. When the government threatens to fine them if they violate their beliefs, then they are violating the Constitution. The government is restricting their ability to follow their beliefs. That is unconstitutional. The government cannot do that. The government cannot force someone to violate their religious beliefs by threatening to fine them heavily. This violates the first amendment. The Democrats are for unconstitutional laws that restrict religious freedom. That is there position. This cannot be done because the Constitution prohibits it. Explain why you think that the government can limit the rights given to the people by the 1st amendment.

Terrorists are for taking away freedoms and that is exactly what you want to do. You are actually closer to a terrorists than these bakers that are following their beliefs. You are for restricting of religious freedom and you have proved it. You are not very tolerant either. But, that is how you and your friends are always. You are conform to what we think or be destroyed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't call someone a bigot for refusing to go against their views. Bigotry is mistreating someone for their views like the man who was fired from the Red Cross for being against gay marriage. Not making someone a cake is hardly the same as a hate crime or anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't call someone a bigot for refusing to go against their views. Bigotry is mistreating someone for their views like the man who was fired from the Red Cross for being against gay marriage. Not making someone a cake is hardly the same as a hate crime or anything.

Exactly

Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion is a private matter. By opening a business you are choosing to provide a service to the public. Therefore you should provide that service to the public and your religious beliefs should be kept private.

But, this has to do with the Constitution. If you open a business, you do not lose your rights. Your religious beliefs cannot be violated anywhere, not even in the public.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with RobertFK. He was much more concise than I was. I don't think a business person can restrict the liberties of the public. There are times when using the Constitution card doesn't work. Like when saying "fire" in a theatre. Using your religion to demean the public when they are not doing anything to warrant unequal treatment should not be allowed. I would like to see an anti-discrimination regulation (Customer Fair Treatment Act) applied for customers, similar to those that a business must follow for their hiring, firing decisions. If it is illegal for a business to discriminate in hiring and firing, then it is just as constitutional to force them to not discriminate against the public. Such behavior should also be shamed and not endorsed. It's so antithetical to Jesuis that it's closer to Satanic, not Christian. So the " Belief" card doesn't work either, unless you're an open Satanist or of some other group whose religious tenant is persecution or open hatred.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with RobertFK. He was much more concise than I was. I don't think a business person can restrict the liberties of the public. There are times when using the Constitution card doesn't work. Like when saying "fire" in a theatre. Using your religion to demean the public when they are not doing anything to warrant unequal treatment should not be allowed. I would like to see an anti-discrimination regulation (Customer Fair Treatment Act) applied for customers, similar to those that a business must follow for their hiring, firing decisions. If it is illegal for a business to discriminate in hiring and firing, then it is just as constitutional to force them to not discriminate against the public. Such behavior should also be shamed and not endorsed. It's so antithetical to Jesuis that it's closer to Satanic, not Christian. So the " Belief" card doesn't work either, unless you're an open Satanist or of some other group whose religious tenant is persecution or open hatred.

It is NOT turning away gays. It is not serving gay weddings. That is a BIG difference. That is not discriminating, that is following your religious beliefs. Also, you cannot force a Christian business to hire a gay person. If they do not want a worker that does not go with their beliefs, then they can decide not to hire someone. You are for unconstitutional acts. You are for restricting religious freedom and restricting free exercise of religion. You are a part of the war on religion and religious freedom. Religious rights are not just for being private with them. They apply to you when you are in public. This means that the state cannot violate them. Forcing a Christian business to hire someone who has a lifestyle they do not agreed with and/or forcing them to serve a gay wedding is restring free exercise of religion. This makes that unconstitutional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've heard of separation of Church and State, right? Also, what about the religious freedom of the customer? You are infringing on his religious freedom by imposing your own religious restrictions. It's a two way street. You can't hide behind your religious beliefs to deny someone a public service. By not serving them, for their gay marriage you'd be restricting their religious freedom.

I'm not for a war on religion. I'm for a war against discrimination and against equality. I'm intolerant towards intolerance. Everyone should be served in a public area, you cannot hide behind a perverted version of what is supposed to be a welcoming religion just because you do not want to provide the service you want to provide.

States are rapidly passing laws that prevent businesses from firing people because they are gay, muslim, old, handicap, or Christian. In the states that these apply, religion is subservient to the state, as it should be in these instances. I hope all the states will follow suit soon.

As far as unconstitutional acts, anti-discriminatory measures have been applied before, regardless of the religion of those involved. The precedent is there. My prediction is that in a few years many more laws will make more regulations constitutional that you probably will not approve of. The first amendment is not a trump card for hateful deeds. There are times when even a first amendment right cannot apply, same as with the second amendment and other amendments.

Religion should be embraced or tolerated when it does not promote negative actions that is detrimental to society. To allow hate and inequality is nothing short of minor terrorism. There is no way you are going to convince me or many other people that you are correct in this matter, nor do I expect to you to understand or be understanding of the reasons for combating such unsavory actions by hateful business people. I don't hate their religion (Christianity), but I hate how they practice it, because they don't know Jesus in the least. What I do hate, is their hatred and their unwillingness to serve everyone equally. I cannot tolerate those kind of business practices, it's a different version of "Whites Only" that used to appear in 20th century.

I mean, what if this had been a hospital? or a Hospice? Should a nurse, doctor or hospital refuse to come to someone's aid because they are Christian, just committed a crime, or because their gay? Is that proper?

The country would be a much better place without those bakers and the people that endorse their actions. Amen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. But, that has nothing to do with this issue. Yes, you are declaring a war in religion. Trying to restrict religious freedom IS a war on religion. And, your idea are trying to restrict religious freedom. The state cannot force a buisness owner to violate their beliefs. This is unconstitutional because it is restricting the free exercise of their religious beliefs. This makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It is not terrorism. By calling it this, you just prove even more that you want a war on religion. You hate Christianity. You want to force us to change our beliefs. You want those bakers to be fined if they do not changed their beliefs. This is a war on religion. THEY SERVE GAYS. Did you not read my other posts. They serve them. They just do not serve GAY WEDDINGS. They do not serve them because they goes against their religion. Sorry that you cannot see that. You are for a war on religion. These laws are a war on religion. These rulings are a war on religion.

HAHA, by not serving them you are restricting their religious freedom. That is laughable. Explain how that is restricting their religion? How? That is right. It is not.

You cannot force someone to violate their beliefs. You cannot prevent free exercise of religious beliefs. This is unconstitutional. You are for a war on religion. You and your Democratic Party want to restrict religious freedom. That is what you guys are about.

The country would be a better place without people who try to restrict religious beliefs and freedom. It would be better if people followed the Constitution. That is not what you want to do. Maybe you should take a Constitution class again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It restricts their religion because the owner is refusing to offer a service for their gay marriage (presumably religion, and possibly Christian).

I don't hate Christianity. I actually like Jesus. It's the perversion of Christianity that I do not like. Like Gandhi said (paraphrased), "I like your Christ. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Jesus would not refuse service to anyone (see the parable in which he at first refuses to heal a woman's daughter to test her, and then, despite calling her a dog, he heals her daughter). He ate with sinners and tax collectors. Christianity is supposed to be a welcoming and loving religion. When someone strikes you. What are you supposed to do? Turn your cheek to make yourself vulnerable for another strike. It's not whatever cult those bakers follow.

I can see from your point of view, which I do not agree with, that they appear to be a war on religion. I do not think they are, but even if they are, they are necessary. Necessary AND proper (the best line in the constitution!).

And although I crack down on religious fundamentalists like these bakers (as I would ISIS), most members of the Democratic Party are very devoutly religious and would disagree with your words. I believe more Catholics are probably Democrats than Republicans. Many protestants are Democrats, especially Episcopalians, Unitarians, and others that are not socially restrictive. Anyway, I'm not a Democrat. I'm an independent progressive. I'd vote Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, Democrat--anything--if any of the parties fielded a winnable candidate that is progressive rather than regressive. I believe the human race has to work together in order to get as technologically advanced and the least suicidal as quickly as possible. Ideologies that perversely seek to slow this progress should be avoided or destroyed. I vote Democrat only because it the least poisonous option that has a chance of winning the White House, and I am by no means a member of that party. Hopefully, Clinton wins in 2016 and another Democrat wins in 2020 (possibly with so many extremists in the Republican Party). The Supreme Court will be almost entirely Democrat selected by 2024 if this occurs. After that, hopefully real progress can be made.

You CAN prevent free exercise of a religious beliefs if they become a threat to a free and equal society. I do not think most bakers would refuse a gay marriage or gay patrons, or straight marriage or straight patrons. This anti-discriminatory customer act would only apply to those with the same mental illness and religious fundamentalism as the bakers.

I do not launch a war on religion, but I would launch one on religious fundamentalism.

To prevent being any more insulting to you than I have been, I will refrain from commenting on this thread. I've said my point. We have fundamental disagreements that can't be mollified. While at heart, I think you are a good person, and, since you're college age, you'll have plenty of time to change your views. I did. I voted for George W. Bush in my first election 2000. That said, I won't be checking back on this "LGBT anti-discrimination" thread, as its turning into Palestine vs Israel rather than something constructive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These bakers SERVE gays. They do not serve gay weddings or make cakes with gay designs. They are still serving these poeple, they just do not do gay wedding stuff. Completely different. You keep making it sound like they put a sign that said no gays. Nope. They are not serving a gay wedding that goes against their beliefs. You cannot win, that is why you are not coming back. The Constitution detsroys your argument. The Constitution is the law of the land and nothing you believe can change it. The fact is that these rulings and laws restrict free exercise of their religion. This is clearly against the Constitution. Also, most Catholics that vote Democrat do not live like Catholics. They are Catholics-in-name-only. These bakers are not a threat to society. They are exercising their religious rights. So, the government cannot restrict their religious freedom. You and your progressve buddies are for launching a full scale war on religion. Your side hates religious freedoms.

This anti-discriminatory customer act would only apply to those with the same mental illness and religious fundamentalism as the bakers.

This proves you want a war on religion. You are out to restrict religious freedom. You know what also shows you want a war on religion? The fact that you called that a mental disease. This shows that you want to restrict the rights of these business owners. This shows you want a complete war on religion.

You want your Democrat friends to win so you can restrict religious freedom. This just shows that you want a war on religion.

You want to have it where the people who want to take away religious freedoms are in complete power so they can take away religious freedoms.

This is a war on religion. You want a war on religion and your points prove it. These are the facts.

You hate Christians and you hate Christianity. You hate Christian beliefs. You do not like Jesus. He said that if you hate Christians, then you hate him. You hate the beliefs that he taught.

You will not respond because the Constitution clearly states that that is unconstitutional. And, since I know the Constitutional rights in the 1st amendment, you have NO argument.

You are pro-persecution. You are pro-discrimination against religious beliefs and Christianity. You openly say that you hope someone gets elected that will institute these laws against Christianity. The country would be better off without your type.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is right. You have to look at the facts. You make it sound like they do not serve gays, but in reality, they do, they just do not do gay weddings. Look at the Constitution. The facts are that they government cannot prohibit free exercise of religion(that includes beliefs). Look at the facts, you want a war n religion.

These are all facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I find it egregious and appalling that in the modern era individuals would not serve people due to race, sexual orientation or otherwise using their religion as a scapegoat. However, I do believe that the 1st amendment of the United States Constitution protects these individuals no matter the basis in which they refuse service on. While I find it disturbing that people would deny service to others based on sexual orientation or whatnot, simply put, it's should not be the perogative for any individual to impose my beliefs on business owners. This includes the government.

Furthermore, and do excuse me if I am getting a bit off course, on the topic of these laws, I find it more effective to allow these businesses to discriminate. In our modern day of social media and networking, news spreads fast and news of appalling acts against minorities spreads faster then most global issues. We do frequently hear cases in which bakeries and shops refuse to service individuals, however, we never hear about the shops continuing to refuse service afterwards due to the simple fact that these shops have shut down. Economically, there is the huge disinscentive to discriminate as well as politically. Discrimination laws may have been appropriate in the former periods of time where it was widely accepted to violate rights of minorities, however in these times there are no reasos for these laws to exist as the invisible hand of public opinion will inevitably end businesses which discriminate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I find it egregious and appalling that in the modern era individuals would not serve people due to race, sexual orientation or otherwise using their religion as a scapegoat. However, I do believe that the 1st amendment of the United States Constitution protects these individuals no matter the basis in which they refuse service on. While I find it disturbing that people would deny service to others based on sexual orientation or whatnot, simply put, it's should not be the perogative for any individual to impose my beliefs on business owners. This includes the government.

Furthermore, and do excuse me if I am getting a bit off course, on the topic of these laws, I find it more effective to allow these businesses to discriminate. In our modern day of social media and networking, news spreads fast and news of appalling acts against minorities spreads faster then most global issues. We do frequently hear cases in which bakeries and shops refuse to service individuals, however, we never hear about the shops continuing to refuse service afterwards due to the simple fact that these shops have shut down. Economically, there is the huge disinscentive to discriminate as well as politically. Discrimination laws may have been appropriate in the former periods of time where it was widely accepted to violate rights of minorities, however in these times there are no reasos for these laws to exist as the invisible hand of public opinion will inevitably end businesses which discriminate.

Actually, the businesses do not get shut down when their rights are violated. When these courts violate the first amendment, these businesses got donations from around the US to help them pay and they stay open. They serve gays. They do not serve gay weddings. You have to get this right when arguing about this. They do serve gays and do not discriminate on that fact. They just do not do gay weddings because their religion do not believe in gay weddings. Make sure and look at the facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...