Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with what I said. I am all for the passing of it. If you don't like the way you are being treated by a business for whatever reason, don't go back. Free enterprise.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
- Thread starter Tim Steelersfan
- Start date
Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with what I said. I am all for the passing of it. If you don't like the way you are being treated by a business for whatever reason, don't go back. Free enterprise.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,381
- Reaction score
- 5,452
- Points
- 113
Yes. Sexual orientation is a choice, race is not. That is your completely irrelevant point.
Religion is also a choice. So I suppose it's unfair to compare that to racial discrimination as well?
Frankly I don't think a religious freedom law trumps anti-discrimination law anyway. Unless your religion specifically says you can't do business with gay people then I don't see where you have a leg to stand on.
Um no...I never said sexual orientation was a choice. Try again.
I bet you don't even know what "orientation" means in this context. If a person has a sexual attraction for a person of the opposite sex, then he or she is orientated that way....you don't choose it dummy.
Some argue that being gay is a choice. I don't believe that. Never did.
Last edited:
My comment was neither agreeing or disagreeing with....I just put another perspective on your "1960's Alabama" comment. Holder and Obama have made this country more racially divided than it has been for a long time.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,381
- Reaction score
- 5,452
- Points
- 113
You said gays were perverts. And from that, you expect me to understand that your belief is that people are born with such perversion? OK then!
Regardless, the point you have apparently missed in this entire conversation is that the law concerns the rights of the person doing the discrimination, NOT the person being discriminated against, whether they are black, gay, Jewish, etc. Get it?
I agree 100%.
So EVERY pizza shop, EVERY bakery, EVERY photographer is a religious nutjob who won't do business with gay people? Or do gays who want to get married (which I'm not opposed to BTW) keep looking until they DO find someone who refuses so they can run to the media and ***** about it?
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,381
- Reaction score
- 5,452
- Points
- 113
I dunno, but I would like someone to force Chik-fil-A to be open on Sundays! Love that ****!
Private companies have always had the ability to maintain image by firing someone for a perceived moral dalliance outside of work... In several of my jobs it was stated that If I slept with a coworker at a party there can be repercussions. Frankly if someone is silly enough to cut off a segment of the workforce they are hurting their own business... its no different than if a store refuses to sell something based on the location where it is from or who makes it, which is done frequently.... its a private business and if they wish to handicap themselves they can do so
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
To a liberal they are ALL public entities.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 2,147
- Reaction score
- 144
- Points
- 63
Well they didn't build that
Oh you know.
If any religious person refused to do business with someone because they are gay can't be very religious.
A smart religious baker asked to make a gay cake would probably reply....."I'm very sorry but I can't do that, can I offer you some donuts at half price for the inconvenience?" The charge of refusing to do business with gays dropped.
Last edited:
The Muzzies don't want to make wedding cakes for gay people.
http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/
Now we're talking! Public nudity and orgies...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/wiccans-say-indiana-religious-freedom-law-opens-the-door-to-polygamy-nude-rituals-at-the-capitol/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/wiccans-say-indiana-religious-freedom-law-opens-the-door-to-polygamy-nude-rituals-at-the-capitol/
Seems pretty simple.
If you own a business and want to refuse to do work for any reason...that is should be your right.
Even if your reasons are arbitrary, impossible to debate religious directives.
It's a screwy business model, but if you want to knowingly lose business, go for it.
I think religion, in general, is under attack by a lot of people for some very valid reasons.
But this shouldn't be one of them.
Capitalism will tell us who is correct in the end.
If you own a business and want to refuse to do work for any reason...that is should be your right.
Even if your reasons are arbitrary, impossible to debate religious directives.
It's a screwy business model, but if you want to knowingly lose business, go for it.
I think religion, in general, is under attack by a lot of people for some very valid reasons.
But this shouldn't be one of them.
Capitalism will tell us who is correct in the end.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,381
- Reaction score
- 5,452
- Points
- 113
To the extent they are open to the public, they are public entities. These are not private clubs.
Also to the extent they are entitled to public services, they are also public entities.
- Joined
- May 22, 2014
- Messages
- 625
- Reaction score
- 265
- Points
- 63
100% true... we're not talking about a private club where you can admit members based on whatever criteria you want. If you open your doors to the public, you must serve the entire public...regardless of whether you agree with their politics/religion/etc...
Even if you must "serve" them, you don't have to cater to their specific custom requests. They're not saying they won't make a birthday cake for somebody who happens to be gay. They're saying they don't want to be part of a ceremony that they find objectionable. As a private enterprise (doesn't matter if they serve the public or not, they are privately owned, not a difficult concept), they have the right to do so. And the couple has the right to recommend people don't go there and take their business elsewhere. What if a gay baker were asked to make a cake celebrating Westboro Baptist Church? Should they be forced to do so?
Was listening to Wilcow on XM today for the first time in a long time. He made the point that you can't pass a law that prevents discrimination against one group and later say it doesn't apply to another group, i.e., when we passed civil rights laws it was about blacks eating at a lunch counter but a lot of people weren't thinking far enough ahead to the day when a black owned the lunch counter and the Klan wants to eat there.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,381
- Reaction score
- 5,452
- Points
- 113
And really, where's a klansman to get good hominy grits and collared greens if he can't go to a soul food resturaunt?
A private business, owned and operated by individuals, cannot be a public entity. National parks, city-run museums, hospitals... these are examples of entities funded by public (read: taxpayer) funds.
The general public has no "skin in the game" when it comes to opening a private business, started and run by individuals. And if that business should fail, the public does not bear the financial burden of any losses. It reminds me of the progressive/liberal idea that it takes a village to raise a child ("your children are really not your children"). I know many business owners whose companies/stores are like their children. They gave birth to an idea, raised it to being, and spend day & night working/worrying about their business. Any hardships endured are felt by the owners and no one else outside. You mean to tell me the general public (strangers with no say in the matter) can tell you how to raise your child? Why should the approach to a privately-owned business be any different? The state should collect its taxes, fees, permits, etc from the business and get out of the way. The free market will dictate if a business survives or not. The state gives little credit to the individual's ability to determine what's good for them and what's not.
Similar threads
