e2493dt

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

180 posts in this topic

Well considering this country is not ruled by Christian law, the fact the church doesn't like gay marriage, or the bible doesn't like it, doesn't influence our laws.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on maturity levels, I don't necessarily think it is wrong for a 20 year old and a 16 year old to be together (my general attitude is, if they could have gone to high school together then it should be legal, though the difference between a 14 year old and an 18 year old is usually enough so I don't know if I think it is right, just like I think an 18 year old and a 30 year old should be legal, though I do not often think it is right). However, in order to protect kids who are too young and immature to be able to consent to sex, there must be a cut-off age for consent, and it will inherently be arbitrary: there is just no way around that. But I believe it is better to lean on the side of protecting kids than it is to risk giving an adult the freedom to sexually exploit someone who is mentally still a child.

Do I want to f*ck my brother? No, the idea is completely repulsive to me. Whether that is something that has been ingrained in me through culture, or something biologically selected for due to the genetic problems incest tends to lead to, I don't know, and I don't really care. Do I care if some siblings or cousins want to f*ck? No, it's their lives. But the prohibition on incestuous marriages is not comparable to the prohibition on same-sex marriages. Keeping marriage opposite-sex only prevents everyone in the US from marrying an entire *class* of people (I cannot marry 51% of all people in the US). Prohibiting marriage between first-degree relatives (cousin marriage is legal in about half the US, and the states in which it is not technically legal are obligated to recognize an out-of-state cousin marriage) means that you are banned from marrying a very small number of specific people. No one is *only* capable of being attracted to a first-degree relative.

Thank you for your answer. Incest sex is repulsive to you just like same sex intercourse is repulsive to a big chunk of society. Why can't you compare incestuous marriages to same sex? Because you say you can't? An incestor will say F*** you, who are you to say homos can get married and not me?

My point is, what's disgusting to you might not be for someone else and since religion doesn't play any part in your life then what are you basing your values and or judgment on?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how a homosexual pursuing another homosexual threatens family structure. The vast majority of humans are not homosexual.

I don't see how incesting threatens the family structure either. (I'm not a Catholic for the sake of this argument, just making a point based on nature and not religion)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how a homosexual pursuing another homosexual threatens family structure. 

 

Exactly. My brother got married to his long-time boyfriend just a few weeks ago. I don't think that his husband's sister's family (very 'traditional' man/woman + their biologically-born son and daughter) fell to pieces the moment they said their vows. My boy/girl relationship (not really 'hetero' considering I'm bisexual) is still as happy as it's always been. My brother's marriage *added* to our family, it did not subtract.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well considering this country is not ruled by Christian law, the fact the church doesn't like gay marriage, or the bible doesn't like it, doesn't influence our laws.

And I agree, they can get married if they want. I don't care, but don't force a business to cater to your wedding because they don't agree with your lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your answer. Is repulsive to you just like same sex intercourse is repulsive to a big chunk of society. Why can't you compare incestuous marriages to same sex? Because you say you can't? An incestor will say F*** you, who are you to say homos can get married and not me?

My point is, what's disgusting to you might not be for someone else and since religion doesn't play any part in your life then what are you basing your values and or judgment on?

 

Because, like I said, prohibiting marriage between members of the same-sex steps on an entire *class* of people. Banning incestuous marriages does not. But that said, if people who are into sibling marriage want to campaign for the right to marriage, they are free to do so. But it is not a hill I feel like dying on. 

 

I base my judgements on what I think will benefit society the most, which is a careful balance of protecting freedom while preventing oppression and exploitation. I see no ways in which prohibiting same-sex marriage benefits anyone, while I see many ways in which it harms. Therefore, opening marriage up to include gay and bi people only seems right.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because, like I said, prohibiting marriage between members of the same-sex steps on an entire *class* of people. Banning incestuous marriages does not. But that said, if people who are into sibling marriage want to campaign for the right to marriage, they are free to do so. But it is not a hill I feel like dying on.

I base my judgements on what I think will benefit society the most, which is a careful balance of protecting freedom while preventing oppression and exploitation. I see no ways in which prohibiting same-sex marriage benefits anyone, while I see many ways in which it harms. Therefore, opening marriage up to include gay and bi people only seems right.

Again, says you. You are basing your believes on what YOU think is right. So where does that leave us?

I'll say it again, there has to be a middle ground, but it wasn't enough for homosexuals. They are not happy with just marriage. Now they want to take freedom from people who don't agree with their lifestyle. Why go after Brendan Eich of Modzilla? Because he donated money from his pocket that has nothing to do with the company's core values in a cause he believed in? And a cause that was striked down and happened 8 years earlier? Talking about holding a grudge. This act wouldn't been proposed if gays would just leave the store and go to the next one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, says you. You are basing your believes on what YOU think is right. So where does that leave us?

I'll say it again, there has to be a middle ground, but it wasn't enough for homosexuals. They are not happy with just marriage. Now they want to take freedom from people who don't agree with their lifestyle. Why go after Brendan Eich of Modzilla? Because he donated money from his pocket that has nothing to do with the company's core values in a cause he believed in? And a cause that was striked down and happened 8 years earlier? Talking about holding a grudge. This act wouldn't been proposed if gays would just leave the store and go to the next one.

 

In this country all we have is the constitution + what people think is right. There is nothing 'higher' for us to fall back on. (Edit to add: and honestly, even if someone irrevocably proved the existence of a deity to me, I would not consider its word any more absolute than mine. I would have *several* strong disagreements with the way it was going about running things, in fact....)

 

Isn't the boycott of Mozilla exactly what everyone who is for this bill is proposing gay people do? People didn't like where Brendan Eich was putting his profits, so they decided to take their business elsewhere. Free market at work.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the pizza and bakery business did NOT refuse to give service to homosexuals IN THE STORE!!!! They just didn't want to cater!

This is the reason why this war will never end. What now? You are force to cater a wedding if not you'll get sued!! F**** that!! Like I said before, Gays are becoming what they so hard fought against. Now they are taking believes and freedom out of another culture and that is not equality. You are winning the battle on gay marriage. Be happy with that, but don't force your lifestyle on everyone because that battle is going to get ugly.

I'm so happy christians are pissed :) Christians force their beliefs on people everyday. Gays aren't forcing their beliefs on you, they just want a damn cake. It's a cake. If you refuse to bake a cake due to someone's sexuality that's called discrimination. You just sound like you're hurt or something that America isn't as christian as you want it to be. Tough luck! Christians need to put their big girl panties on and stop whining. Take the order, bake the cake, take the green crisp money, and be done with it. It's simple. I don't see what the big deal is.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of what I read years ago, it was his money, not the company's.

Even Bill Maher who is a gay marriage supporter said this:

"Also, I think there is a 'gay mafia", "I think if you cross them, you do get whacked! I really do."

Again, there has to be a middle ground and this act would've not been proposed if homosexuals just live and let live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's ok, go and find another store. If I was refused a service because I'm Catholic say in a Jewish business, would I be offended? No, if they say it politely, I'm find with it. I'll just find another store. As simple as that.

If it were that simple how come for the past 100+ years people are still fighting for equality? Are you hurt? Who harmed you in your life?

How do you know 90 percent of people are heterosexual? Gay people are everywhere even in Saudi Arabia where being gay can get you the death penalty. There's no such thing as a "traditional" family. But what the heck does this have to do with this thread?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so happy christians are pissed :) Christians force their beliefs on people everyday. Gays aren't forcing their beliefs on you, they just want a damn cake. It's a cake. If you refuse to bake a cake due to someone's sexuality that's called discrimination. You just sound like you're hurt or something that America isn't as christian as you want it to be. Tough luck! Christians need to put their big girl panties on and stop whining. Take the order, bake the cake, take the green crisp money, and be done with it. It's simple. I don't see what the big deal is.

I'm not forcing anything on anyone. I'm defending a couple's religious believes. And like you said. It's just a cake. If you were denied a special service not a service a special service, it is their America's freedom right. End of story. Move on to the next store. I also don't see what's the big deal. Many other businesses will gladly take your business. Is that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of what I read years ago, it was his money, not the company's.

Even Bill Maher who is a gay marriage supporter said this:

"Also, I think there is a 'gay mafia", "I think if you cross them, you do get whacked! I really do."

Again, there has to be a middle ground and this act would've not been proposed if homosexuals just live and let live.

 

Who cares if it was 'his' money or the company's? If he is employed by them, than his money is coming from company profits, so I fail to see an important distinction.

 

So should women have stopped vying for our rights when we got the vote? How dare we go so far as to demand access to equal funding in public schools, am I right? The 'middle ground' can't involve depriving people of their due civil rights. "We'll agree to be 25% less oppressed than we were before" is not a fair 'middle ground' -- the only thing that is fair is receiving *100%* of our due rights.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were that simple how come for the past 100+ years people are still fighting for equality? Are you hurt? Who harmed you in your life?

How do you know 90 percent of people are heterosexual? Gay people are everywhere even in Saudi Arabia where being gay can get you the death penalty. There's no such thing as a "traditional" family. But what the heck does this have to do with this thread?

Equality for whom? If you force a baker to cater your wedding by violating his/her belives, is that equality? Regarding the percentage is a rough estimate depending on the study. Here is one that is much lower. Around 3% indentified as gay or lesbian.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/07/15/study-nation-s-percentage-of-gays-less-than-supposed/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad the blacks didn't "live and let live" when denied service in restaurants, huh?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we please try to stay to the original topic of thread? We're drifting from it quite a bit now.

 

 

Businesses must adapt to current laws. Businesses that have been open for generations are still required to, for example, abide by handicap laws, and abide by health regulations.

 

Health and safety regulations are there to prevent accident or illness to the public, or to allow the public easy access to your business. That's very different from telling a business owner what services they should and should not provide, or what events they have to take part in.

 

 

This is not solely a gay issue. This is a religious issue, the law has deemed it okay to deny service based on religion. Muslim? I don't have to serve you, I don't believe in your ways. Christian? Nope, get out of my store. Unwed couple? Can't shop here, your kind isn't allowed.

This is America, I have the freedom from your religion, it should not be imposing on my daily life. While I'm not gay, I'm sure I could be denied service if I were to walk into a store with my girlfriend, on the grounds of unwed couple.

 

You're still confusing refusing to serve a person with refusing to take part in an event. As I pointed out, the law does NOT say you can refuse service to someone because of their faith or sexual orientation. Your examples of, "Christian, get out of my store" and "Unwed couple, your kind isn't allowed" are just silly. Nowhere does the law say you can do that.

 

If you have the right to not practice religion, then why don't others have the right to practice their religion? Religious freedom cuts both ways. You said that someone else's beliefs "should not be imposing on your daily life". But that's exactly what's being done to many religious people - someone else is imposing their beliefs about marriage on them in their daily lives.

 

If you believe that a Christian baker must make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then should they also be forced to make a cake for a Satanic black mass? If not, why not? You said that they shouldn't be able to turn away a customer based on that customer's beliefs, and that goes for any religious belief, be it theist, atheist or anti-theist.

 

What about a baker who turns down a cake for a KKK rally? A Muslim baker who doesn't want to bake a cake with an image of the prophet Mohammed on it? A pro-choice baker who won't make a cake for a pro-life event? Are any of these okay, or should they all be forced to bake the cakes or be taken to court?

 

There was a case I heard about just the other day in Colorado, where a gay baker refused to make a cake for a Christian group which carried bible verses condemning homosexual acts. The baker won the court case. Do you think that the court ruled the wrong way? If not, why not? Isn't the baker imposing his own beliefs on the Christian customer, just as you say Christian bakers impose their beliefs on others by not making same-sex wedding cakes? I don't see how you could justify one but not the other - either the baker has the freedom to refuse a cake order because he disagrees with the message, or he has to make any order that comes through the door even if it goes against everything he believes in.

 

xxx

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares if it was 'his' money or the company's? If he is employed by them, than his money is coming from company profits, so I fail to see an important distinction.

 

So should women have stopped vying for our rights when we got the vote? How dare we go so far as to demand access to equal funding in public schools, am I right? The 'middle ground' can't involve depriving people of their due civil rights. "We'll agree to be 25% less oppressed than we were before" is not a fair 'middle ground' -- the only thing that is fair is receiving *100%* of our due rights.

I matters because his private views has nothing to do with the company's. What you do with your private life has nothing to do with how you run a company. I stll buy Apple products even though Cook is gay. Will that afrect how he runs the company? Absolutely not. Although he should have re-branded the company to Banana. A little humor!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad the blacks didn't "live and let live" when denied service in restaurants, huh?

Again, gays were not denied a service at the store, they just didn't want to form part of a gay wedding. Different scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we please try to stay to the original topic of thread? We're drifting from it quite a bit now.

Health and safety regulations are there to prevent accident or illness to the public, or to allow the public easy access to your business. That's very different from telling a business owner what services they should and should not provide, or what events they have to take part in.

You're still confusing refusing to serve a person with refusing to take part in an event. As I pointed out, the law does NOT say you can refuse service to someone because of their faith or sexual orientation. Your examples of, "Christian, get out of my store" and "Unwed couple, your kind isn't allowed" are just silly. Nowhere does the law say you can do that.

If you have the right to not practice religion, then why don't others have the right to practice their religion? Religious freedom cuts both ways. You said that someone else's beliefs "should not be imposing on your daily life". But that's exactly what's being done to many religious people - someone else is imposing their beliefs about marriage on them in their daily lives.

If you believe that a Christian baker must make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then should they also be forced to make a cake for a Satanic black mass? If not, why not? You said that they shouldn't be able to turn away a customer based on that customer's beliefs, and that goes for any religious belief, be it theist, atheist or anti-theist.

What about a baker who turns down a cake for a KKK rally? A Muslim baker who doesn't want to bake a cake with an image of the prophet Mohammed on it? A pro-choice baker who won't make a cake for a pro-life event? Are any of these okay, or should they all be forced to bake the cakes or be taken to court?

There was a case I heard about just the other day in Colorado, where a gay baker refused to make a cake for a Christian group which carried bible verses condemning homosexual acts. The baker won the court case. Do you think that the court ruled the wrong way? If not, why not? Isn't the baker imposing his own beliefs on the Christian customer, just as you say Christian bakers impose their beliefs on others by not making same-sex wedding cakes? I don't see how you could justify one but not the other - either the baker has the freedom to refuse a cake order because he disagrees with the message, or he has to make any order that comes through the door even if it goes against everything he believes in.

xxx

Thank God for Jegsy!! She explains my points in a more articulated way.

But you see Jegsy how they keep coming back with scenarios that never happened? They keep saying they were denied a service as opposed to form part of an event.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, gays were not denied a service at the store, they just didn't want to form part of a gay wedding. Different scenarios.

This law also applies to stores, which allows store owners to refuse service. This isnt just about gay weddings and catering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the right to practice your religon, but it can't infringe on freedoms of others. You can't be persecuted for being a Christian, but others don't have to abide by your religious laws. A gay man, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, should not be refused service because of their religion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This law also applies to stores, which allows store owners to refuse service. This isnt just about gay weddings and catering.

And it is wrong to deny a service at the premises. This act is a double edge sword but it wouldn't have happened if these homosexual couples had just moved on to the next store. If I own a restaurant, I would never discriminate anyone, but if they ask me to banquet their gay wedding, I would say no. It is my business and you don't have the right to force me to agree your lifestyle. Like Jegsy said, why did the baker won against the Christian? Would he have won against homosexuals?

Double standard USA!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I matters because his private views has nothing to do with the company's. What you do with your private life has nothing to do with how you run a company. I stll buy Apple products even though Cook is gay.

 

And you have the right to not buy Apple products if you don't like the fact that they have an openly gay CEO, just like people had the option to boycott Mozilla because they didn't approve of where their CEO was donating his profits.

 

I fail to see a meaningful distinction between performing a service within a defined place of business (like a restaurant) versus providing a service that requires you to travel (like a catering company). It seems like a lot of people in this thread think that it wouldn't be OK to kick a lesbian couple out of your pizza parlor just because they're lesbians, but it should be a protected right to refuse to deliver a pizza to their shared apartment. Why? It seems like you should either have the right to refuse services to anyone, anywhere, for any reason, or you should be required to provide the services you offer without discrimination (except of course getting rid of people who are being disruptive, destructive, or acting in other ways that threaten the general safety of everyone).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you have the right to not buy Apple products if you don't like the fact that they have an openly gay CEO, just like people had the option to boycott Mozilla because they didn't approve of where their CEO was donating his profits.

 

I fail to see a meaningful distinction between performing a service within a defined place of business (like a restaurant) versus providing a service that requires you to travel (like a catering company). It seems like a lot of people in this thread think that it wouldn't be OK to kick a lesbian couple out of your pizza parlor just because they're lesbians, but it should be a protected right to refuse to deliver a pizza to their shared apartment. Why? It seems like you should either have the right to refuse services to anyone, anywhere, for any reason, or you should be required to provide the services you offer without discrimination (except of course getting rid of people who are being disruptive, destructive, or acting in other ways that threaten the general safety of everyone).

Deliver pizza to her apartment? How is that even comparable to forming part of a wedding? The pizza and bakery cases were brought to court because they didn't want to cater a wedding. The owner of the pizza place said she didn't deny the gay customer from buying a pizza, she denied forming part of the wedding by catering the event. That's the gray area I'm trying to point out. You are welcome to my store, just dont ask me to be part of your wedding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gray area can be the catering. But, the reason the law has outraged so many, is because it does allow discrimination in the regular daily business setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now