Jump to content

Anti-Gay Laws are based on religious freedom


Recommended Posts

I'm personally against anyone who discriminates anyone on matters of religion, race and sexual orientation. Having said that, if a company chooses to discriminate, that's on them. And as a result of their actions there will be counter reactions from the public, and with the way social media works the word will get out and the free market will flush out anything that particular region doesn't tolerate. This puts the power in the people's hands, as it should be in many instances. This would be a perfect example of why more libertarian principles should be adopted into our society. Not saying that we should be the wild wild west, but there are areas where we can implement some of these philosophies to our economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Shikha Dalmia: The overblown hypocrisy of Tim Cook’s business boycott of Indiana.

 

The Indiana law goes farther, and also applies to disputes between private parties. This “would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors,” alleges Apple CEO Tim Cook, who has become a liberal hero by leading the corporate campaign to boycott Indiana.

 

This is a horrible caricature of the actual law.

 

For starters, the Hoosier RFRA allows private individuals to discriminate only when that is absolutely necessary to avoid violating their core religious principles. A Christian restaurant owner’s refusal to serve gays wouldn’t fit the bill.
Howeve
r, a Je
wish baker who refuses to make sacramental bread for a Catholic Mass or an Evangelical photographer who declines to photograph a gay wedding might — might, mind you, not will. That’s because the law provides merely an argument for courts to weigh when evaluating discrimination complaints against such individuals — not an automatic defense. Judges could still decide — in fact have decided — that equal treatment is a compelling enough government interest that such discriminatory actions against gays are prohibited.

 

 

 

 

Apple has stores in Saudi Arabia, where they behead gays.

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s because the law provides merely an argument for courts to weigh when evaluating discrimination complaints against such individuals — not an automatic defense. Judges could still decide — in fact have decided — that equal treatment is a compelling enough government interest that such discriminatory actions against gays are prohibited.

 

I do not know why that's so difficult to understand. You don't even need a Lexis-Nexis account to figure that out; it's five minutes of Googling to find the applicable precedents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is it wrong that i do not see this an as issue like it's being made out? that i don't give two ***** about this issue? that i think any law made is a bad law?

 

yeah, great, this is crap. why are all ya'll so butthurt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So Muslim fundamentalists share some of the same values as Christian fundamentalists?

 

Well, yeah. Pretty much any religion that's more than 100 years old isn't cool with dudes bangin out other dudes. Seriously not cool with said dudes getting hitched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So Muslim fundamentalists share some of the same values as Christian fundamentalists?

I guess they do don't they. I don't see a problem with it. I do see a problem forcing a business to provide a service they don't feel comfortable doing. They pay for the building, equipment, supplies and labor and they can be forced to create something they don't want to? If they don't want to do it there will be someone who does and if enough don't want to it opens up a terrific business opportunity for a gay person to open up a all gay bakery or pizzeria. I don't have a problem with that either! Hell there is a national chain of women only gyms out there and I don't have a problem with that.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Jesus comes back to pronounce judgment on the world and ends up in this gay dude's apartment, and there are two gay dudes just going at it in there. Jesus shakes his head and goes, "guys, I gotta send you both to hell." So which one does he send first?







The bottom. He already has his **** packed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something of note that's been missed in all of this:

 

Who the hell has their wedding catered by a pizzeria?

 

I think that was brought up. But seriously what are the chances of that happening? So the likelihood of them even getting the opportunity to say no to a gay wedding is slim to none.

Edited by Chef Jim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think that was brought up. But seriously what are the chances of that happening? So the likelihood of them even getting the opportunity to say no to a gay wedding is slim to none.

 

 

JOURNALISM: Story About First Business to ‘Publicly Vow to Reject Gay Weddings’ Was Fabricated Out of Nothing.

 

FTA:

ABC-57 reporter Alyssa Marino’s editor sends her on a half-hour drive southwest of their South Bend studio, to the small town of Walkerton (Pop. ~2,300).

According to Alyssa’s own account on Twitter, she “just walked into their shop [Memories Pizza] and asked how they feel” about Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

 

Owner Crystal O’Connor says she’s in favor of it, noting that while anyone can eat in her family restaurant, if the business were asked to cater a gay wedding, they would not do it. It conflicts with their biblical beliefs. Alyssa’s tweet mentions that the O’Connors have “never been asked to cater a same-sex wedding.”

 

What we have here is — as we called in journalism school jargon — “no story.” Nothing happened. Nothing was about to happen.

 

more at the link:

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess they do don't they. I don't see a problem with it. I do see a problem forcing a business to provide a service they don't feel comfortable doing. They pay for the building, equipment, supplies and labor and they can be forced to create something they don't want to? If they don't want to do it there will be someone who does and if enough don't want to it opens up a terrific business opportunity for a gay person to open up a all gay bakery or pizzeria. I don't have a problem with that either! Hell there is a national chain of women only gyms out there and I don't have a problem with that.

Just curious - is there a line to be drawn for this approach? One can say that just about anything at all makes one "uncomfortable".

Incidentally, you guys truly visit the most !@#$ed up sites!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROBBIE SOAVE: Was Memories Pizza a Victim of Irresponsible Journalism? Yes: Memories Pizza, while not as gay-affirming as many of us would like, didn’t announce pending discrimination.

 

 

The owners of Memories Pizza, the O’Connor family, did not willingly seek out controversy, deny service to a gay person or couple, or even go out on a limb to suggest that they would. No, they merely responded to a question from Alyssa Marino, a local reporter for ABC 57 News who had come to their shop in search of a story.

 

And they did give her a story—but not the one she reported. Her initial headline was “RFRA: First Michiana business to publicly deny same-sex service” (Michiana is the region in Indiana where Memories Pizza is located). That headline implies two things that are false. The O’Connors had no intention of becoming the first Michiana business to do anything discriminatory with respect to gay people; they had merely answered a hypothetical question about what would happen if a gay couple asked them to cater a wedding. And the O’Connors had every intention of providing regular service to gay people—just not their weddings. . . . As I said yesterday, I don’t agree with the policy the O’Connors articulated, though I would defend their right to practice it—in both theory and actuality. I would also defend the right of people to criticize it, though I would question the wisdom, necessity, and productivity of doing so in such a harsh and stridently condemning manner. The death threats are another matter; no one has the right to threaten violence against someone else.

 

The people who made those threats are at fault, but so are the journalists who erroneously reported on this story—who made a merely unfriendly policy seem like a declaration of pending discrimination against the next gay person to walk through the front door of Memories Pizza.

 

 

 

 

Alyssa Marino owes them an apology, and so do a lot of others.

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious - is there a line to be drawn for this approach? One can say that just about anything at all makes one "uncomfortable".

Incidentally, you guys truly visit the most !@#$ed up sites!

I, as a business owner, should have the right of refusal. The free market system will always keep me from becoming unreasonable and abusing my liberty and rights. No for profit owner wants to be known as racist or homophobic. Bad for business. I think the implications of what I assume you want, forcing businesses to supply against their will, are far worse than the perceived problem of discrimination against gays. The minor inconvenience of a gay person going to another establishment to get a wedding catered, pizza or whatever, does not equal an authoritarian entity coercing a person or business to supply services against their will. I assume you disagree but all I can say this is my value system. This is how I prioritize.

We have a screen printing shop If someone like Louis Farakan comes to our shop and wants me to print "Hate Whitey" tee shirts am I obligated to do so? I know I'm not doing it. Not because Farakan is black but because I don't feel comfortable with the request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...