Page 36 of 50 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 493

Thread: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

  1. #351
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Over the edge...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,089

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    In almost all case I think you are right. But not in absolutely all.
    NOBODY is right all the time, I have been wrong before and am sure will be again...

  2. #352
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,572

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Meaningless post where you didnt say anything....well, I knew you'd be confused...thanks for confirming it.

    You couldnt refute it with actual discussion.... (Amusing, your removing the bold below, lol...too confusing eh? Well, hypocrisy often is)
    And yet, you continue to post nothing. Well, at least you are easily amused.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  3. #353
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,297

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    That statement was made in general, not against you.
    ....that doesn't really absolve you of assuming that those who oppose you are doing so from evil motives. The "you" and "me" in there can be general as well.

    There is plenty of evidence on this board alone, that Christians who reject LGBT persons are doing so because they are sinners and then they add the part about hellfire. It's the kind of thing that LGBT individuals are likely to have heard. The Phelps are pretty widely distributing that sentiment as well. So when someone who is LGBT hears, even in the most polite language (if they are lucky) "We cannot in good faith provide you with service", that is what is behind it and what is communicated.
    1. Christians who reject LGBT persons are not doing so because the LGBT persons are sinners, but rather because the Christians are sinners. Christ died for us while we were yet sinners and came to seek the lost, not the found. The only time that Christians would be justified in "rejecting" a homosexual is the narrow case wherein A) he or she was a member of the church B) they were actively practicing and C) they refused on multiple occasions, after multiple counseling sessions and attempts to reach them, to repent. And even then, it's not rejecting the person, but rather their membership in an organization that is based around beliefs which that individual apparently does not share.

    1.a. However, in today's intellectual climate where we are more likely to instinctively reject the doctrine of sin, there is widespread inability on the part of the non-Christian community to mistake the belief that homosexual activities are sinful with the rejection of homosexuals themselves.

    2. The Phelps are a perfect example of the people in #1, and no, did not "spread that sentiment widely", they acted wickedly and thus were widely rejected. Accusing the broader Christian community of being represented by the Phelps because you may have heard their language is akin to accusing the Pro-Life community of being represented by the people who argued that we should kill more black babies to cut down on crime and get rid of the "socially undesirable portions of our society".

    3. It is still quite possible that the individual, no matter how soft the let down, will still feel hurt and rejected. That's human. Assigning the intent to make someone feel hurt and rejected in retrospect, however, due to that effect, is a logical fallacy.

    3.a. As a strict rights issue, you do not have the right to have society order itself so that you do not feel rejected. Otherwise there would be quite a few women from High School (and College, come to think) who owe me restitution. You do have First Amendment Rights. Homosexuals can't use government to deny you the right to speak out or vote against SSM, and Christians can't use government to deny them the ability to advocate for SSM or petition for redress of grievances. The same level of protection extends to Religion - I cant' use the government to force you to participate in my belief system, and you shouldn't be able to use the government to force me to participate in yours.

    The response is that we have already recognized that we can override First Amendment objections in order to create public accommodation laws - but look at the reasoning behind that move. We didn't create public accommodation laws during the Civil Rights era because blacks felt hurt and rejected (though they were), we did it because State Enforced Systemic Bans were denying blacks the ability to access goods and services. The Impact was enough to justify overriding the individual First Amendment Rights of those who would disagree. There are no such comparable bans today regarding homosexuals - the Impact on blacks in the 50s was that you couldn't travel because you couldn't stay in hotels. The Impact on homosexuals today is that you have to go to the baker down the street or call the next wedding planner on the google search page instead. That does not meet the threshold that we have established for justifying overriding people's right to First Amendment protections.

    Nobody enjoys being rejected, for any reason, but being rejected because of who you are, is hurtful and unkind. Nothing stops me from being kind to people patronizing my services, short of someone being a jerk to me and I have trouble being unkind then.
    and you can refuse to take part in a ceremony in a kind way that is neither rude nor cruel.

    If you were asked in your profession to do something that you found violated your deepest belief system, what would you do?

  4. #354
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,572

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    The crazies on the left, you know who you are, (we all know) have tried to pervert this law into an anti gay law, when of course it's not. My understanding is that it gives people in business the right to go to court and make their case as to why it is an infringement on their rights to be forced to do something that is against their own rights.

    So, if a Christian couple goes to a gay baker and asks for a cake, and are refused, the baker must show why this is a violation and he's not just simply refusing because he is a bigot and hates Christians.

    But, as usual, the left have distorted and mislead to the point that you have idiots on the left, like the governor of Connecticut, protesting this as they have virtually the same law on the books for years! This really exposes the lack of thought and the willingness to go ahead with anything as long as someone with a "D" next to their name said it.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  5. #355
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    24,806

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    No, but a wedding ceremony is. And it doesn't have to be a religious ceremony to violate your faith.
    Many weddings are not religious and besides a baker is not taking part in it anyway. Cakes are part of the reception. There is nothing worse than faux indignation used to excuse hatred and bigotry.

  6. #356
    Tenacious
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    34,861

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    And yet, you continue to post nothing. Well, at least you are easily amused.
    This was/is my post and it contains a good deal of content relevant to this discussion:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    There's no difficulty with the signage...it serves both bigot and bigotee. It also protects both, even tho only one might desire it (those being informed before they have to deal with the bigots). The govt is actively protecting their right to association there, even if the business owners prefer to 'protect' their own right to association by associating with (personally informing) those it desires not to associate with. (yup, still funny).

    Still confusing for you, I know but basically it means that the govt involvement protects both's rights, one side that would desire it and one side that may or may not. And I agree with the govt protecting people's rights.
    If you cannot form a reasonable response to it, then I suggest you stop bringing that fact to our attention, lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    Welfare is a bad thing? It is essentially free money. It is not that bad.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  7. #357
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,297

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Many weddings are not religious and besides a baker is not taking part in it anyway. Cakes are part of the reception.
    when you support the wedding with your products or services, you are taking part. Nor is it your job to define others faith. People have the right not to be forced to take part in ceremonies that violate their Religion, absent overwhelming need.

    There is nothing worse than faux indignation used to excuse hatred and bigotry.
    That's funny. That's pretty much what I've been thinking.

  8. #358
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    34,253

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    ....that doesn't really absolve you of assuming that those who oppose you are doing so from evil motives. The "you" and "me" in there can be general as well.
    I stand by my assertion. If you wish to take offense though I have been clear I was making a general statement, that's not on me.

    1. Christians who reject LGBT persons are not doing so because the LGBT persons are sinners, but rather because the Christians are sinners. Christ died for us while we were yet sinners and came to seek the lost, not the found. The only time that Christians would be justified in "rejecting" a homosexual is the narrow case wherein A) he or she was a member of the church B) they were actively practicing and C) they refused on multiple occasions, after multiple counseling sessions and attempts to reach them, to repent. And even then, it's not rejecting the person, but rather their membership in an organization that is based around beliefs which that individual apparently does not share.
    Despite the wordplay, this only supports my point.

    A) You won't permit LGBT persons in church because of who they are.
    B) You won't permit them to actively practice their faith, because of who they are.
    C) You think they have something to repent for.

    Any or all three of these are representations of what I said earlier and this is why I stand by it. Especially C). I won't derail the thread with a religious discussion. If a Christian refuses service in the most flowery terms, A-C are behind it. They are being denied service for who they are, because that is how they see themselves and millions of others who accept that LGBT is how they are born, see it. It's who they are and that is unkind/rude/cruel.


    1.a. However, in today's intellectual climate where we are more likely to instinctively reject the doctrine of sin, there is widespread inability on the part of the non-Christian community to mistake the belief that homosexual activities are sinful with the rejection of homosexuals themselves.
    There is no mistaking, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". They are being rejected by Christians, for being who they are, no matter the nuanced language.

    2. The Phelps are a perfect example of the people in #1, and no, did not "spread that sentiment widely", they acted wickedly and thus were widely rejected. Accusing the broader Christian community of being represented by the Phelps because you may have heard their language is akin to accusing the Pro-Life community of being represented by the people who argued that we should kill more black babies to cut down on crime and get rid of the "socially undesirable portions of our society".

    I used Phelps as an example that there are those who shout ugly things about LGBT persons. Remove them from the discussion, there are still plenty on this board and in out in the world who say awful things about the LGBT community. Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberson partially blaming 9/11 on "gays and lesbians". I don't even have to go that far back to find hateful comments about LGBT persons. He makes them almost daily and with the controversy in Indiana, he's said them yesterday and today. I'll post them if you would like, but I don't want to take up the space.

    Then there is The American Family Associate, a lobbying group, said this:
    So what is this mark of the beast today? Thatís easy. Itís the gay rainbow.

    This is the rainbow Big Gay has stolen from the Bible and from the church and turned into its own twisted symbol of perversion.
    The Mark of the Beast is Here

    They have a page of links to their views on homosexuality, including the belief that homosexuals are broken people.

    I could go on and on, but these are people and groups that are not outliers in the Christian community, making these reprehensible statements about LGBT persons and repeating what you have said about "Loving the sinner, hating the sin" (paraphrasing).


    Hit the character limit.
    I don't attack my constituents. Bob is my constituent now.
    This is the important stuff. We canít get lost in discrimination. We canít get lost in B.S. We canít get lost tearing each other down. I want to make a point here that no matter what you look like, where you come from, how you worship, who you love, how you identify, and yeah, how you run, that if you have good public policy ideas, if you are well qualified for office, bring those ideas to the table, because this is your America, too. This is our commonwealth of Virginia, too.
    Danica Roem - The nation's first openly transgender person elected to serve in a U.S. state legislature.

  9. #359
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    34,253

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    .

    3. It is still quite possible that the individual, no matter how soft the let down, will still feel hurt and rejected. That's human. Assigning the intent to make someone feel hurt and rejected in retrospect, however, due to that effect, is a logical fallacy.


    [indent]3.a. As a strict rights issue, you do not have the right to have society order itself so that you do not feel rejected. Otherwise there would be quite a few women from High School (and College, come to think) who owe me restitution. You do have First Amendment Rights. Homosexuals can't use government to deny you the right to speak out or vote against SSM, and Christians can't use government to deny them the ability to advocate for SSM or petition for redress of grievances. The same level of protection extends to Religion - I cant' use the government to force you to participate in my belief system, and you shouldn't be able to use the government to force me to participate in yours.
    I wasn't saying that society has to order itself so that no one feels rejected. I was explaining in the least and most human terms what, "We in good conscience cannot provide service" means to an LGBT person, to refute the innocence of that statement. My first point in all of this was that some Christian business owners want the right to discriminate against people for being who they are. You minimized it by saying you didn't understand why they just couldn't move on to the next google result.


    The response is that we have already recognized that we can override First Amendment objections in order to create public accommodation laws - but look at the reasoning behind that move. We didn't create public accommodation laws during the Civil Rights era because blacks felt hurt and rejected (though they were), we did it because State Enforced Systemic Bans were denying blacks the ability to access goods and services. The Impact was enough to justify overriding the individual First Amendment Rights of those who would disagree. There are no such comparable bans today regarding homosexuals - the Impact on blacks in the 50s was that you couldn't travel because you couldn't stay in hotels. The Impact on homosexuals today is that you have to go to the baker down the street or call the next wedding planner on the google search page instead. That does not meet the threshold that we have established for justifying overriding people's right to First Amendment protections.



    and you can refuse to take part in a ceremony in a kind way that is neither rude nor cruel.

    If you were asked in your profession to do something that you found violated your deepest belief system, what would you do?
    Cakes and photography are only examples. I don't see how either violates one's religious conscience. When any business is permitted to discriminate against an individual for their religious beliefs, then any service or product can be denied on that basis. And for small town people, there may not be alternatives.
    I don't attack my constituents. Bob is my constituent now.
    This is the important stuff. We canít get lost in discrimination. We canít get lost in B.S. We canít get lost tearing each other down. I want to make a point here that no matter what you look like, where you come from, how you worship, who you love, how you identify, and yeah, how you run, that if you have good public policy ideas, if you are well qualified for office, bring those ideas to the table, because this is your America, too. This is our commonwealth of Virginia, too.
    Danica Roem - The nation's first openly transgender person elected to serve in a U.S. state legislature.

  10. #360
    Tenacious
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    34,861

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post

    There is no mistaking, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". They are being rejected by Christians, for being who they are, no matter the nuanced language.
    IMO it is a conscious and hypocritical choice for 99% of those claiming they are doing any type of discrimination based on religious belief.

    Because how many bakers or photographers refuse to bake cakes or take pics of the weddings of adulterers? Or fornicators? Because almost everyone sleeps with their fiances before the wedding, even lives with them these days. And I'm sure there are many cases, esp. in small towns, where these service providers are aware of cheaters.

    Very very few who believe that these are very serious sins, on par (according to the Bible) with homosexuality are refusing service to the other sinners. But they are CHOOSING to refuse service only to the gay "sinners."
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    Welfare is a bad thing? It is essentially free money. It is not that bad.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

Page 36 of 50 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... 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
  •