Jump to content
270soft Forum

Religious Protection Laws/ LGBT anti-discrimination Laws


Recommended Posts

Bigotry and discrimination are usually pretty disgusting, but forcibly preventing it among private actors can't be justified. People don't lose their rights because they have unpopular and bigoted views, and market forces usually minimize the harm from discrimination anyway, so theres no compelling reason to violate these rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@vcczar let's say your hypothetical act was passed. Now everytime a client wanting the store to cater a gay wedding comes along to businessowners for whom catering such would be against their religous beliefs they will make up an excuse not to cater said wedding (or do so as often as possible) similar to what employers do if they want to fire someone for being Gay,Jewish,Black etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

@vcczar let's say your hypothetical act was passed now everytime one (a client wanting the store to cater a gay wedding) comes along people for whom catering such would be against their religous beliefs will make up an excuse not to cater said wedding (or as often as possible) similar to what employers do if they want to fire someone for being Gay,Jewish,Black etc.

The almost complete lack of punctuation makes this sentence very confusing. I thinking I know what you might be saying, but I'm just as equally unsure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

The almost complete lack of punctuation makes this sentence very confusing. I thinking I know what you might be saying, but I'm just as equally unsure. 

I made some edits to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

@vcczar let's say your hypothetical act was passed. Now everytime a client wanting the store to cater a gay wedding comes along to businessowners for whom catering such would be against their religous beliefs will make up an excuse not to cater said wedding (or do so as often as possible) similar to what employers do if they want to fire someone for being Gay,Jewish,Black etc.

My belief is this: in order to claim religious exemption, you must have sufficient evidence that the income generated directly benefits the church/temple. In my eyes, this would be the little store inside temples that sell Seder plates or the stores that sell prayer books inside the church. 

However, if you're operating a business outside of those parameters I outlined, than you can't claim said exemption. And the follow up is, where do we draw the line on religious exemption? Do we allow Jehovah's witness doctors  deny access to blood transfusions?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I made some edits to it.

Ok. With the edit, the sentence says something different than what I thought you were trying to say. 

I would say that I expect any business opposed to my Act to do whatever they can to exploit the loopholes or gaps. Therefore, the loopholes would have to be filled by other people working on this bill with me. I think especially in service industries like fire departments, or hospitals (even if privately owned) it should be as strongly illegal as possible to refuse to aid someone in distress. It's even more unforgivable if the discriminated person has no other options in their town or community. I also agree with @Sunnymentoaddict's recent comments. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I'll reply in a few minutes I want to continue my Unity tutorial video I'm watching.

I'm not really interested in continuing discussing this thread. I remember this thread as the one that made me temporarily block JViking. I'm fairly intolerant of intolerance, which is the necessary paradox of tolerance. So I won't be responding on this because I don't think it's worth losing my respect for any of the forum members that support discrimination, even for religious or other purposes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I'm not really interested in continuing discussing this thread. I remember this thread as the one that made me temporarily block JViking. I'm fairly intolerant of intolerance, which is the necessary paradox of tolerance. So I won't be responding on this because I don't think it's worth losing my respect for anyone the supports discrimination, even for religious purposes. 

OK I finally got the IDE sitched back to MonoDevelop so I''ll be busy playing with Unity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2015 at 9:22 AM, jvikings1 said:

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.

If a business refuses you to buy their product or offer their service why would you force them to do that? I mean, I am a homosexual as well, but if ever a business refuses to do so I would respect their decision and right to do so.

Why not find a business who's willing to sell and offer their service? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HomosexualSocialist said:

If a business refuses you to buy their product or offer their service why would you force them to do that? I mean, I am a homosexual as well, but if ever a business refuses to do so I would respect their decision and right to do so.

Why not find a business who's willing to sell and offer their service? 

Amen, the right to choose who your serve and hire and how you pay is all yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People who talk tolerance want to be tolerated, they don't want to tolerate others. A hypothetical sign maker who won't put "God Hates XXXX" on a sign is OK because he won't do that for anyone but a wedding cake baker who won't put two grooms on top of a cake for anyone is the devil and must be put out of business. It's OK for Grindr to cater to gays only but we can't have eharmony catering to straights only, that's grounds for a lawsuit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Amen, the right to choose who your serve and hire and how you pay is all yours.

Sure, we've seen businesses that refuse to serve soldiers and cops.  I know you're OK with that.  If a business owned by a Muslim refused to serve women unless they were wearing a burqa and accompanied by a close male relative, I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with that either.  Heck, if someone lived in a small town with only one bakery it wouldn't be a big deal if they had to travel hundreds of miles to get the cake they want.  That's freedom!

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, pilight said:

Sure, we've seen businesses that refuse to serve soldiers and cops.  I know you're OK with that.  If a business owned by a Muslim refused to serve women unless they were wearing a burqa and accompanied by a close male relative, I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with that either.  Heck, if someone lived in a small town with only one bakery it wouldn't be a big deal if they had to travel hundreds of miles to get the cake they want.  That's freedom!

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic lol, but I do unironically hold those beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question - were the bakers involved in these cases refusing to bake the cakes for same-sex weddings at all, or were they just refusing to write (for example) "Congratulations Rob and Juan" in the frosting?

I actually do think government should make as much room for "conscientious objection" as possible, including both religious and non-religious reasons. I wouldn't want an atheist baker to be forced to bake cakes that say "Jesus saves," or a politically conservative baker to be forced to bake cakes that say "Hillary Clinton for President." I can see why drawing the line at simply baking the cake could be problematic, though, because there are all kinds of commercial exchanges in today's society that could result in somebody doing something that the seller disagrees with. What happens when an arts-and-crafts store refuses to sell posterboard to somebody with a "Make America Great Again" hat because they're concerned that the person intends to make a pro-Trump sign with it? So it's not always an easy or uncomplicated question to figure out what's a reasonable form of conscientious objection.

I do think that the Obama administration's contraceptive mandate was an overreach, however, because there the link is a little more direct, insofar as the employer ends up paying for a portion of the employee's health care.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my issue with "religious freedom" laws as mentioned, if a Muslim shop owner refused to cater to christians, there would be riots. I can't fathom an argument that makes any sense beyond one using religion to defend bigotry, which is not new. The discussion tends to omit the fact that no one is speaking of religious organizations/churches. I do not think there is anyone arguing that a church has to perform any wedding that they disagree with, however, the protections against discrimination from a place of business is pretty crucial for this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Reagan04 @RI Democrat @pilight @michaelsdiamonds

I will say this here, and my only comment here - religious freedom is all well and good, but if someone is denying service to people or refusing to employ people because they lead "sinful lifestyles," or such, then they're not actually following the Ministry of Christ as clearly written at all and their "convictions" are NOT Christian - they're something else entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pilight said:

Does it matter?  Why would anyone want to institute a system that has failed every time it's been tried?

Yes since in order for it to work best the whole world would become communist either simultaneously or within a short timeframe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Patine said:

@Reagan04 @RI Democrat @pilight @michaelsdiamonds

I will say this here, and my only comment here - religious freedom is all well and good, but if someone is denying service to people or refusing to employ people because they lead "sinful lifestyles," or such, then they're not actually following the Ministry of Christ as clearly written at all and their "convictions" are NOT Christian - they're something else entirely.

I agree actually. I agree 100%. But that is their right to do so.

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

×
×
  • Create New...