• 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!

Georgia Governor Rejects Bill Shielding Critics of Gay Marriage

Beaudreaux said:
He made the correct choice, for what appears to be the correct reason - "If indeed our religious liberty is conferred upon us by God, and not by man-made government, perhaps we should simply heed the hands-off admonition of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Click to expand...

Correct choice but I doubt that was his reason. When organizations like Disney and the NFL threaten to stop doing business in your state it has an effect.
 
BrewerBob said:
Correct choice but I doubt that was his reason. When organizations like Disney and the NFL threaten to stop doing business in your state it has an effect.
Click to expand...

Of course it has an effect. Your implication is that he would have supported the legislation otherwise... why exactly? I prefer to take a person at their word until they prove I should feel otherwise.
 
JANFU said:
Georgia Governor Rejects Bill Shielding Critics of Gay Marriage

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/u...nd-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


Thoughts are?
Click to expand...

Thoughts are easy on this topic.
These idiots simply don't learn, like I keep saying these bigots are going to keep pushing and playing in the grey areas until there are none. They are only going to HELP further protect equal rights and gay rights and further limit illegal discrimination.

"Critics" of equal rights/gay marriage need no protection, they arent in any danger. They are 100% free to be critics all they want.
 
Helix said:
if you want to be pissed at someone for putting you at risk of having to bake a gay birthday cake, the correct target of your anger should be corporations. they are the ones who put a cable tie around the governor's testicles and threatened to cinch it.

either way, i don't care. i see no compelling argument that discrimination due to sexual orientation should be state sanctioned.
Click to expand...

How is allowing people to associate freely government sanctioning anything other than freedom of choice? All it would say is people are free to associate or not as they so choose. The government isn't telling them they must do this or can't do this, but simply saying make your own choice. Supporting freedom of choice isn't saying what people can do nor is approving of one thing or another.

And why is it better that the government force association, labor and commerce? If someone doesn't want to make someone a cake why is it ok for the state to force the issue? Why is that governmental action somehow better than allowing people to freely associate and trade with those they choose?
 
Henrin said:
How is allowing people to associate freely government sanctioning anything other than freedom of choice? All it would say is people are free to associate or not as they so choose. The government isn't telling them they must do this or can't do this, but simply saying make your own choice. Supporting freedom of choice isn't saying what people can do nor is approving of one thing or another.

And why is it better that the government force association, labor and commerce? If someone doesn't want to make someone a cake why is it ok for the state to force the issue? Why is that governmental action somehow better than allowing people to freely associate and trade with those they choose?
Click to expand...

ZERO of that is forced in this case . . .ZERO LMAO
You have tried this mentally inane, intellectually void, philosophy and dishonest acrobatic claims many times and each time the fail. Easily destroyed by facts, laws and rights.
 
Henrin said:
How is allowing people to associate freely government sanctioning anything other than freedom of choice? All it would say is people are free to associate or not as they so choose. The government isn't telling them they must do this or can't do this, but simply saying make your own choice. Supporting freedom of choice isn't saying what people can do nor is approving of one thing or another.

And why is it better that the government force association, labor and commerce? If someone doesn't want to make someone a cake why is it ok for the state to force the issue? Why is that governmental action somehow better than allowing people to freely associate and trade with those they choose?
Click to expand...

Because homosexuals aren't second class citizens, and society is increasingly less tolerant to state sanctioned discrimination against them.
 
Beaudreaux said:
He made the correct choice, for what appears to be the correct reason - "If indeed our religious liberty is conferred upon us by God, and not by man-made government, perhaps we should simply heed the hands-off admonition of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Click to expand...

Except by stating that private individuals and businesses cannot discriminate outside of government roles then it really isn't hands off.
 
BrewerBob said:
Correct choice but I doubt that was his reason. When organizations like Disney and the NFL threaten to stop doing business in your state it has an effect.
Click to expand...

I think the bill went a little too far, from what I read. The less government involved, the better. I just don't like when you have to courts stepping in and forcing people to do things that are against their beliefs (within the law). But if you are going to protect one side, then you have to make sure the other side is protected too.

In the cake example, perhaps they could make the cake, but it is okay to refuse to decorate it in any way that conflicts with their beliefs. Then you can have your cake, and decorate it too.
 
maquiscat said:
Except by stating that private individuals and businesses cannot discriminate outside of government roles then it really isn't hands off.
Click to expand...

There is nothing preventing private individuals from discriminating against or for anyone or anything they wish. Private businesses (private membership clubs, etc.) are also still free to discriminate against or for anyone or anything they wish. Businesses that conduct business in the public sphere are restricted from discriminating against people that are members of a protected class. None of the people represented by the letters LGBT are in a protected class on a federal level because of being in one group or another that those letters represent. They may be in a protected class because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, but not sexual orientation or sexual identity - which will eventually change as well, it just going to take some time to accomplish that.

Being that religion is a protected class, yes this is making the government have a hands-off approach, given that there is no reason to create a new law allowing the government and/or businesses that operate in the public sphere to specifically discriminate against their fellow man on religious grounds. The 1st Amendment restricts government (Congress actually but the 1st Amendment has been fully incorporated to the states so the term government is accurate) from establishing religion, which this law would have done by allowing government sanctioned and an official government approved religious act of discrimination. Never before has the government attempted to define an official government sanctioned religious act, until now in many states regarding government sanctioned discrimination of people on religious grounds making them de facto second class citizens without the protections of the law regarding the same rights everyone else enjoys to be free in their person and their lives without government restriction and without the protection of due process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom