• 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

CriticalThought said:
The word is semantics.
Click to expand...

Sounds good, then you agree it can be called something else and you can still obtain the same "rights, privileges, and benefits."
 
scatt said:
Sounds good, then you agree it can be called something else and you can still obtain the same "rights, privileges, and benefits."
Click to expand...

It was not me nor any other gay rights supporter who passed like 20 state constitutional bans on civil unions. Are you publicly supporting their repeal?
 
CriticalThought said:
It was not me nor any other gay rights supporter who passed like 20 state constitutional bans on civil unions. Are you publicly supporting their repeal?
Click to expand...

I support the repeal of all state laws banning or supporting marriage of any kind.
 
scatt said:
I support the repeal of all state laws banning or supporting marriage of any kind.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you see civil unions as marriage. I guess the name does not matter to you as much as you suggested.
 
j-mac said:
UGH.....I am really tired of gay noise....Just get married already and leave the rest of us alone....As for the Atheist....They settled a case and they are dancing in the streets...Big deal. The Amish in KY, yeah, don't get why they refused but ok....And the final Amish story, of a guy suing over losing his job, I think KeystoneRV made the wrong case...Instead of trying to argue title VII they should have just dismissed out of hand any sort of discrimination, and stuck with the reason he was fired....Safety....Once they entertained the dismissed employee's claim, they gave it credit....Poor attorney's.
Click to expand...

Just to chime in on one part of this... The Amish have been fighting putting the orange sticker on their buggies because they believe if they get killed in a car wreck then it was God's will... kind of thinking.
 
scatt said:
Nobody logically can.
Click to expand...

Then why not support the repeal of all state constitutional bans against civil unions? I like that conservatives are willing to insist that gays settle for less than marriage, but they are not going to support the repeal of bans against civil unions. It is hypocritical beyond belief.
 
CriticalThought said:
Then why not support the repeal of all state constitutional bans against civil unions?
Click to expand...

I support the repeal of all state laws banning or supporting marriage of any kind.
 
Somerville said:
OK - let us then go with instances that have actually occurred in various locales around the country. Actual happenings where a religious fanatic with a public business refused to serve others because their "religious" beliefs were offended. Under the Arizona law as proposed, all of these cases of discrimination would be legal in Arizona.

Sweet Cakes' refusal of same-sex wedding order found to violate customers' rights: Readers weigh in | OregonLive.com

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarne...an-photographers-must-compromise-beliefs.html

LifeSiteNews Mobile | Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises

Atheist group claims civil rights victory over Rochester Hills country club | MLive.com

No idea what you are saying with your comment about the Amish, but some Amish in Kentucky did spend a few days in jail for a really silly reason - Religious Discrimination? 8 Amish Men Jailed After Refusal to Post Safety Signs on Buggies | Video | TheBlaze.com

doing the Google, I did find a case of an Amish-owned company losing a discrimination suit. The company tried to argue that being “non-Amish” is not a protected category under Title VII; one must be discriminated against because of one’s religion—not one’s non-religion. The court reje cted this argument. - Document 16 :: McIntire v. Keystone RV Company :: 3:2010cv00508 :: Indiana Northern District Court :: US Federal District Courts Cases :: Justia
Click to expand...

So... your great counterargument is that... there is an obvious need for the bill under discussion, as the kinds of abuses of people's rights that this bill is designed to prevent are prevalent.
 
Somerville said:
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"
Click to expand...

pure nonsense

same excuses were used to discriminate against minorities and women in the past too.

they were mentally retarded and dishonest then also

bigots and people who support discrimination see the writing on the wall, they are scared and the REEEEEEK of desperation and its hilarious, they no the have all but lost the war so they are clinging, hoping to win some little battles and make a last stand but thier ducks are cooked!


#EqualRightsAreWining
 
scatt said:
But it is their business, they do not have to hire people that are not followers of their religion, nor do they have to pay for their healthcare directly or indirectly if it is against their region.
Click to expand...

IF the people are following their religious principles, then they wouldn't be paying for any contraceptives at all because the people would choose not to get contraceptives in the first place. But we all know that people don't feel that way. The problem is that too many people, especially religious organizations, want to control other people's lives, decisions. They have no real right to demand that their employees don't try to not get pregnant. That is absurd, and I don't care if it violates what they perceive as their religious principles or not. They are not being forced to personally stop making babies.
 
cpwill said:
So... your great counterargument is that... there is an obvious need for the bill under discussion, as the kinds of abuses of people's rights that this bill is designed to prevent are prevalent.
Click to expand...

As a conservative put the emotional knee jerk desire to push a religious agenda aside and ask yourself the critical question that all responsible conservatives ask of any proposed law, "what might be the unintended consequences of this legislation?'
 
roguenuke said:
IF the people are following their religious principles, then they wouldn't be paying for any contraceptives at all because the people would choose not to get contraceptives in the first place. But we all know that people don't feel that way. The problem is that too many people, especially religious organizations, want to control other people's lives, decisions. They have no real right to demand that their employees don't try to not get pregnant. That is absurd, and I don't care if it violates what they perceive as their religious principles or not. They are not being forced to personally stop making babies.
Click to expand...

Not paying for their employees abortions is not controlling their lives.
 
CriticalThought said:
As a conservative put the emotional knee jerk desire to push a religious agenda aside and ask yourself the critical question that all responsible conservatives ask of any proposed law, "what might be the unintended consequences of this legislation?'
Click to expand...

It does the same thing that the 1st amendment does or is suppose to do. allow people to practice their religious views or practices without fear of the government stepping in and penalizing them for practicing their religious beliefs.

that owners of companies can't be punished for exercising their first amendment rights.
look at the chick fil a incident. they tried to demonize that place and it backfired they had more sales than ever before and had people lined up around the block.
their sales are also still going strong.

you say you don't like religious people forcing their views on you well other people don't like you forcing your views on them. it goes both ways.
 
Somerville said:
Your opinion, there are others



The fun part
Click to expand...

Spin by TP....btw, a Soros/Podesta outfit that has real problems with truth. In any case, TP points out in their article that although it is their opinion that the requirement wrongly forced on LSoP may not end run them specifically, it may others. This is a sneaky, underhanded way of forcing an agenda on a group that this administration shouldn't be doing that to.

I don't give a damn what those people that took the job with LSoP want to do with their time off, but let them take $5 of their own pay, and buy their own BC. IMHO, it is a back door, slimy way to undermine the Church, and religion to enter this arena and use government force to go after them.
 
ludin said:
<snip>

you say you don't like religious people forcing their views on you well other people don't like you forcing your views on them. it goes both ways.
Click to expand...


This is the problem. One side says that telling them to keep their religious beliefs out of the public forum, whether that forum be a business, public land or public schools, is "imposing" other beliefs upon them. No atheist, pagan, homosexual or other disliked segment of the population is trying to force their beliefs "down the throat" of the Christian. The 'others' simply want no preferential treatment to be given to any beliefs. Yet, somehow there is a portion of the Christian community in America which seemingly believes that if they aren't provided accommodations unavailable to all other citizens, then they, the Xians, are being oppressed.
 
Somerville said:
This is the problem. One side says that telling them to keep their religious beliefs out of the public forum, whether that forum be a business, public land or public schools, is "imposing" other beliefs upon them. No atheist, pagan, homosexual or other disliked segment of the population is trying to force their beliefs "down the throat" of the Christian. The 'others' simply want no preferential treatment to be given to any beliefs. Yet, somehow there is a portion of the Christian community in America which seemingly believes that if they aren't provided accommodations unavailable to all other citizens, then they, the Xians, are being oppressed.
Click to expand...

telling someone to keep their religious views out of the public forum is unconstitutional please see the 1st amendment.
the SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that you do not give up your first amendment rights just because you are in a public setting.
that include religious protections.

sure they are. that is why they harass and sue and everything else. you accept my beliefs or i sue and force you to accept what i believe.

all citizens have the same protections.
 
j-mac said:
Spin by TP....btw, a Soros/Podesta outfit that has real problems with truth. In any case, TP points out in their article that although it is their opinion that the requirement wrongly forced on LSoP may not end run them specifically, it may others. This is a sneaky, underhanded way of forcing an agenda on a group that this administration shouldn't be doing that to.

I don't give a damn what those people that took the job with LSoP want to do with their time off, but let them take $5 of their own pay, and buy their own BC. IMHO, it is a back door, slimy way to undermine the Church, and religion to enter this arena and use government force to go after them.
Click to expand...


Sometimes hatred or distaste for a group causes people to forego actually reading posted links
The nuns argue, incorrectly, that this form may also be used to induce their insurer to provide birth control to the workers in their nursing homes though a separate arrangement. That may be true in some cases, but it is not true here, as the nuns use an insurer who is also exempt from compliance with the requirement to provide birth control. So the punch line is that all the nuns needed to do is fill out the form, and then no one would provide birth control to anyone. Nevertheless, they did not wish to do this.
Click to expand...

The relevant federal statutes ERISA § 3(33)(C)(i) and ERISA § 3(33)(C)(ii)(II) & (C)(iii). Basically the courts have ruled for more than 30 years, if the body providing health insurance to church employees does not sell insurance to non-employees, the insuror is not required to provide services which violate their religious tenets.
 
ludin said:
telling someone to keep their religious views out of the public forum is unconstitutional please see the 1st amendment.
the SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that you do not give up your first amendment rights just because you are in a public setting.
that include religious protections.

sure they are. that is why they harass and sue and everything else. you accept my beliefs or i sue and force you to accept what i believe.

all citizens have the same protections.
Click to expand...


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?
 
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...

They paid for it and installed it?
 
scatt said:
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...
They paid for it and installed it?
Click to expand...

This 'reply' is not answering the question I posed.
 
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...

this has nothing to do with what we are discussing. you as a person do not give up your 1st amendment rights just because you enter a public domain. just like a student in school can bring a bible in and read it during his free time. the SCOTUS is very clear on this policy.

the OK thing is a separate issue. we are talking about an individual private person.
 
ludin said:
this has nothing to do with what we are discussing. you as a person do not give up your 1st amendment rights just because you enter a public domain. just like a student in school can bring a bible in and read it during his free time. the SCOTUS is very clear on this policy.

the OK thing is a separate issue. we are talking about an individual private person.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should read the OP, specifically the following “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom