• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

roguenuke said:
Yes I was unaware. Still not elective abortions and still not what we were discussing.
Click to expand...

Here we go, your first qualifier of the discussion -- "elective" abortions. I said abortions, not "elective" abortions. Are you still unaware that taxpayer funding is used to pay for abortions?
 
DownWithObama said:
It is so sad how far America has gotten of course of what is rightly defined by law. For instance, there are three requirements for something to be considered a civil right. The third refers "being born that way." There have been many studies of the brain and on genetics and not one has been proven valid for any kind of "gay gene." Every single study or research has either provided false data or didnt use a control and every one has not been able to be replicated. Therefore being gay is not a right.
Click to expand...

Privacy is a right.
 
ChezC3 said:
If one person's conscience offends another person's delicate sensibilities, that just too F'n bad...Isn't that what the progressive outlook is?
Click to expand...

NO. The ability to use religion as a way to avoid compliance with laws that protect the rights of employees and customers of a business should be limited to actual religious organizations, not just any bozo who wants to get away with illegal discrimination by claiming a religious reason.
 
roguenuke said:
I didn't say anything wrong. I was discussing birth control, what this issue is about, not abortions. The law concerns birth control coverage, not abortions.
Click to expand...

Please don't feed the troll.
 
cpwill said:
People are allowed to exercise the right of association in ways the rest of us find distasteful.

A knee jerk religious agenda of the kind you are alluding to would be the opposite of what is being described. Such an agenda would remove the right of association by (for example) forbidding the employment of homosexuals in churches, or banning pastors from keeping their jobs once they have been divorced.


Individual liberty. If you are going to put "libertarian" next to your lean, you are supposed to be in favor of it. Even for people you disagree with.
Click to expand...

Believe me, I would love to end any and all law suits by same sex couples who are discriminated against by private business owners. The only arguments that conservatives have left against same sex marriage are such lawsuits. But I am looking further down the road than same sex couples. I am looking at not just how Christians could use this law but other religious groups. Can you look further ahead than just gays and right wing Christians and perhaps see some possible unintended consequences of this bill? This is fair warning for what is to come. Give it some critical thought.
 
Hard Truth said:
NO. The ability to use religion as a way to avoid compliance with laws that protect the rights of employees and customers of a business should be limited to actual religious organizations, not just any bozo who wants to get away with illegal discrimination by claiming a religious reason.
Click to expand...

Why would I want to sustain a person's lifestyle (by sustaining their life via job) which I morally object?

Further, why should I be forced to hire anyone or allow in my place of business, anyone whom I don't want? Do I not have a right to give my money or trade my goods with those I choose to?

The only argument of discrimination I'll hear is one where it involves the government as that is the only one which should not b tolerated, anything else is an infringement on the person.
 
ChezC3 said:
Why would I want to sustain a person's lifestyle (by sustaining their life via job) which I morally object?
Click to expand...

Because it's none of your damn business.

Further, why should I be forced to hire anyone or allow in my place of business, anyone whom I don't want? Do I not have a right to give my money or trade my goods with those I choose to?
Click to expand...

Except where it conflicts with non-discrimination laws, sure. However, it shouldn't make a difference to you in the least. So long as the employee does their job and makes you money, what do you care what they do on their off-hours? If you're unable to separate your religious beliefs from your business practices, you need professional help.
 
ChezC3 said:
Why would I want to sustain a person's lifestyle (by sustaining their life via job) which I morally object?

Further, why should I be forced to hire anyone or allow in my place of business, anyone whom I don't want? Do I not have a right to give my money or trade my goods with those I choose to?

The only argument of discrimination I'll hear is one where it involves the government as that is the only one which should not b tolerated, anything else is an infringement on the person.
Click to expand...
When you say this out loud how does it not sound discriminatory to you? And if it does, how can you support it?
 
Cephus said:
Because it's none of your damn business.

If you're unable to separate your religious beliefs from your business practices, you need professional help.
Click to expand...

The state says it is their business.

SCOTUS disagrees.
 
Somerville said:
You think then that the Oklahoma legislature installing a giant Ten Commandments memorial on the grounds of the state house and then refusing to accept similar sized monuments from other groups is protected by the First Amendment?
Click to expand...

what ever happened with this? there was a story on it, as a christian myself i found it super funny that extremists used loopholes to accomplish this and then cried when the same loophole was used by others.

far to many people use religion for the wrong things, my religion is for ME. thats it. Its not a tool to judge others or push others down. Its not a tool to make national laws, its not a tool to "illegally" discriminate and what makes all those things even worse is that to many extremists hypocrites pick and choose when they want to be dishonest and fall back on religion for support of their ignorant behaviors.

Religion is a personal thing and thats that.
 
Cephus said:
Because it's none of your damn business.



Except where it conflicts with non-discrimination laws, sure. However, it shouldn't make a difference to you in the least. So long as the employee does their job and makes you money, what do you care what they do on their off-hours? If you're unable to separate your religious beliefs from your business practices, you need professional help.
Click to expand...

correct religious freedom which i support is not a blanket for violating others rights, people get this easily confused.

i dont know if its stupidity or dishonesty but they try this failed excuse a lot.

I have freedom to move freely in the public world but i cant just run people over in my car and say, hey they were in my way and i wanted to go that way, im free to move as i please lol

this is the same broken logic some of these extremist try to use and then the law smacks them down for it.
 
ChezC3 said:
Why would I want to sustain a person's lifestyle (by sustaining their life via job) which I morally object?

Further, why should I be forced to hire anyone or allow in my place of business, anyone whom I don't want? Do I not have a right to give my money or trade my goods with those I choose to?

The only argument of discrimination I'll hear is one where it involves the government as that is the only one which should not b tolerated, anything else is an infringement on the person.
Click to expand...

Because it is in the interest of society to have everyone able to be employed, not just people who are members of the most popular religions or race. Because it is in the interest of society and all individuals to have employers stay out of their workers and customers private lives. Because it is in the interest of society and all individuals to be able to enter any place of business without worrying that you will be denied service for some arbitrary and irrelevant reason such as religious belief or skin color.
 
Hard Truth said:
Because it is in the interest of society to have everyone able to be employed, not just people who are members of the most popular religions or race.
Click to expand...

Privately employed, sure.
 
Cephus said:
Because it's none of your damn business.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but my business IS MY GOD DAMN BUSINESS!


Except where it conflicts with non-discrimination laws, sure. However, it shouldn't make a difference to you in the least. So long as the employee does their job and makes you money, what do you care what they do on their off-hours? If you're unable to separate your religious beliefs from your business practices, you need professional help.
Click to expand...

What do I care? My employees represent my company, they represent my brand, in effect, they represent me. That's why I care.

Why should one have to separate them? Why you all up on infringing on another person's rights? Oh, you're a hypocrite, nevermind...
 
Hard Truth said:
Because it is in the interest of society to have everyone able to be employed, not just people who are members of the most popular religions or race. Because it is in the interest of society and all individuals to have employers stay out of their workers and customers private lives. Because it is in the interest of society and all individuals to be able to enter any place of business without worrying that you will be denied service for some arbitrary and irrelevant reason such as religious belief or skin color.
Click to expand...

Who says they can't be employed? Just not by those who'd not want them in their employ. I don't recall there being an exclusive religion or race that holds all the jobs. As I said, an employee is an extension of the employer thereby granting the employer the right to determine who it is that represents him. To demand that you must interact with everyone, regardless of your choice, is an infringement on your freedom.
 
Last edited:
Phil E Buster said:
When you say this out loud how does it not sound discriminatory to you? And if it does, how can you support it?
Click to expand...

You miss the underlying message here, the below sentence of the one you highlighted summed it up; in a society where one is free, one must be allowed to discriminate, the only discrimination which cannot and should not be "tolerated" is that which is done by the government.
 
ChezC3 said:
You miss the underlying message here, the below sentence of the one you highlighted summed it up; in a society where one is free, one must be allowed to discriminate, the only discrimination which cannot and should not be "tolerated" is that which is done by the government.
Click to expand...

Ok. I have a better understanding of where you're coming from. To further clarify for me, you are advocating or would be in favor of a return to a Jim Crow type of era and unequal treatment of women and minorities?
 
ChezC3 said:
Who says they can't be employed? Just not by those who'd not want them in their employ. I don't recall there being an exclusive religion or race that holds all the jobs. As I said, an employee is an extension of the employer thereby granting the employer the right to determine who it is that represents him. To demand that you must interact with everyone, regardless of your choice, is an infringement on your freedom.
Click to expand...

We can see the results of allowing discrimination by business in the southeast USA until the mid-1960s, in South Africa until the mid-1980s and with India's caste system. The result was extreme poverty, oppression and disenfranchisement for the unpopular groups.


When someone operates a business that is open to the public or over a certain size they must comply with a wide range of rules that cost money and create inconvenience for the owner for the public interest and the safety of the employees and customers. Those include requirements for ramps and wide doorways etc. for disability access, alarms, sprinklers and extinguishers for fire protection, sometimes video surveillance systems and/or guards are required, there are also zoning rules, restrictions on signs, business hours restrictions and many others. The days when businesses can do anything they want, anywhere they want, are long gone and we are better off for it.
 
Last edited:
Phil E Buster said:
Ok. I have a better understanding of where you're coming from. To further clarify for me, you are advocating or would be in favor of a return to a Jim Crow type of era and unequal treatment of women and minorities?
Click to expand...

Haven't you heard? Racism and sexism ended in 1970. No one would discriminate against minorities or women these days.




irony alert
 
Hard Truth said:
The days when businesses can do anything they want, anywhere they want, are long gone and we are better off for it.
Click to expand...

Those days never existed.

Hard Truth said:
No one would discriminate against minorities or women these days.
Click to expand...

Sure they would, and then be promptly kicked out of the market.
 
Hard Truth said:
When someone operates a business that is open to the public or over a certain size they must comply with a wide range of rules that cost money and create inconvenience for teh owner for teh public interest and the safety of the employees and customers. Those include requirements for ramps and wide doorways etc. for disability access, alarms, sprinklers and extinguishers for fire protection, sometimes video surveillance systems and/or guards are required, there are also zoning rules, restrictions on signs, business hours and many others. The days when businesses can do anything they want, anywhere they want are long gone and we are better off for it.
Click to expand...

What is and what ought are always two different things it seems...

I'm choosing to ignore that you've mistaken me for someone not privy to business and all that entails, along with confusing my speaking on what ought rather than what is.
 
Phil E Buster said:
Ok. I have a better understanding of where you're coming from. To further clarify for me, you are advocating or would be in favor of a return to a Jim Crow type of era and unequal treatment of women and minorities?
Click to expand...


I would be in favor of being allowed to freely interact and trade, do business with, and employ whomever I choose to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom