Page 2 of 26 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 257

Thread: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

  1. #11
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,771

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    It's fascinating how there are no such cases of anyone's ability to practice their faith in private or order their own life according to the beliefs being infringed. It's only when people try to exercise power over others that problems arise. Isn't that interesting? It's almost like everyone's right to practice whatever religion or non-religion they like is being protected equally, and not just the majority religious positions. Can you imagine what would happen if Protestants were being fired over their employers' religion?
    Are you sure you are in the right thread?

    From the OP:

    "Senate Bill 1062, pushed by the conservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and introduced by Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, would allow individuals to use religious beliefs as a defense in a lawsuit filed by another individual."

    So you are against religious freedom?
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #12
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,815

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    It's fascinating how there are no such cases of anyone's ability to practice their faith in private or order their own life according to the beliefs being infringed. It's only when people try to exercise power over others that problems arise. Isn't that interesting? It's almost like everyone's right to practice whatever religion or non-religion they like is being protected equally, and not just the majority religious positions.
    The government fined a family who was only practicing relgiion in the privacy of their own home:

    California Family Fined for Bible Study in Home - ABC News

    Can you imagine what would happen if Protestants were being fired over their employers' religion
    A protestant being fired because his boss doesn't agree with that relgioin would not bother me in the slightest. It's the owner's business, and he should hire whoever he wants.

  3. #13
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:06 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    10,013

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    The government fined a family who was only practicing relgiion in the privacy of their own home:

    California Family Fined for Bible Study in Home - ABC News



    A protestant being fired because his boss doesn't agree with that relgioin would not bother me in the slightest. It's the owner's business, and he should hire whoever he wants.
    and then the Fromms got their money back from the city - San Juan Capistrano Adopts Changes To Shield Home Bible Studies « CBS Los Angeles
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  4. #14
    Bat Chain Puller
    beefheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The burning sands of the desert southwest.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    19,817

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Some people really don't understand the word "discrimination"



    Why wouldn't refusal to hire a gay person simply because of that person's sexual orientation be discrimination?

    What if the employer thinks unmarried pregnant women should be shunned, not be allowed to work for him/her? Isn't that discrimination?

    White supremacists often use the Bible to justify their racism. This proposed law would allow a member of the Aryan Nation cult to refuse entry into his business, refusal to rent to those he considers inferior beings, etc. Like I posted at the beginning, there are some people who really don't understand the meaning of "discrimination"
    This bill is from the talibornagain wing of AZ that does whatever the ALEC theocrats tell them to do. We have the worst legislators in AZ, conspiracy theorists, birthers, and flat out racists and theocratic ninnies.
    “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”
    -Mark Twain

  5. #15
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,816

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Some people really don't understand the word "discrimination"



    Why wouldn't refusal to hire a gay person simply because of that person's sexual orientation be discrimination?

    What if the employer thinks unmarried pregnant women should be shunned, not be allowed to work for him/her? Isn't that discrimination?

    White supremacists often use the Bible to justify their racism. This proposed law would allow a member of the Aryan Nation cult to refuse entry into his business, refusal to rent to those he considers inferior beings, etc. Like I posted at the beginning, there are some people who really don't understand the meaning of "discrimination"
    And I thought the claims of Sharia Law making inroads in America were all just a hoax. This law is unconstitutional and will never stand up in court.

  6. #16
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    The government fined a family who was only practicing relgiion in the privacy of their own home:

    California Family Fined for Bible Study in Home - ABC News
    And it would have been an open and shut case with no defense whatsoever if they had been reading any other book besides the bible. That this was even a controversy demonstrates exactly the special protections that religion gets. As Somerville showed, the family got their money back. They were allowed to violate the law, solely because they were violating it for religious reasons. That's completely unacceptable.

    A protestant being fired because his boss doesn't agree with that relgioin would not bother me in the slightest. It's the owner's business, and he should hire whoever he wants.
    That's seriously messed up. You think that someone should, by virtue of wealth and owning stuff, be able to punish someone for their religious affiliation? I will never understand the pro-aristocracy mindset that so many conservatives have.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    "Senate Bill 1062, pushed by the conservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and introduced by Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, would allow individuals to use religious beliefs as a defense in a lawsuit filed by another individual."

    So you are against religious freedom?
    This will have nothing to do with religious freedom. It will allow people to violate the law as long as they cite a religious reason for doing so. This is just a move to cripple the protections for employees and give special rights to majority religions. Believing something is not a defense against civil liability.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    JoCo Kansas
    Last Seen
    03-01-17 @ 02:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    373

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Some people really don't understand the word "discrimination"



    Why wouldn't refusal to hire a gay person simply because of that person's sexual orientation be discrimination?

    What if the employer thinks unmarried pregnant women should be shunned, not be allowed to work for him/her? Isn't that discrimination?

    White supremacists often use the Bible to justify their racism. This proposed law would allow a member of the Aryan Nation cult to refuse entry into his business, refusal to rent to those he considers inferior beings, etc. Like I posted at the beginning, there are some people who really don't understand the meaning of "discrimination"
    And religious conservatives are worried about the progressive liberals advancing the reach of Sharia Law and Muslim doctrine? Oy vey!

  8. #18
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,119

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    I wouldn't see a problem with this bill.
    “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
    Stephen R. Covey


  9. #19
    Bat Chain Puller
    beefheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The burning sands of the desert southwest.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    19,817

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Are you sure you are in the right thread?

    From the OP:

    "Senate Bill 1062, pushed by the conservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and introduced by Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, would allow individuals to use religious beliefs as a defense in a lawsuit filed by another individual."

    So you are against religious freedom?
    The eternally uptight Kathi Herrod is the head of Center for Az Policy, and she is a full on, whacked out talibornagain who tries to get all kinds of ALEC crap passed in our state. She just lost another big one when she tried to have abortions banned at 20 weeks, every year she gets all these theocratic bills introduced that are unconstitutional and we waste more and more money on these morals commandants who are in constant fear that someone else may actually be enjoying their lives and living in a free society. Bah!

    This bill is there for one purpose, to allow religious groups to discriminate, it won't stand a lawsuit, it is a waste of time.
    “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”
    -Mark Twain

  10. #20
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,292

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Personally, I'm against any secular business activity using religious freedom or freedom from religion as a crux to conduct themselves in a discriminatory manner. Likewise, I'm all for religious institutions and any business activity they run being allowed to operate under policies that discriminate based on their religious teachings/beliefs.

    I believe this law to be one that goes too far, just as I believe DHS regulations under Obamacare forcing religious entities to provide contraceptive care options to employees goes too far, and as I believe DHS has the right to create regulations that require secular businesses to provide that contraceptive care, regardless of the religion of the owner/operator.

    Separation of church and state has to mean something.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

Page 2 of 26 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •