Guests may browse all the site, but only registered users can post in the main forums.
Unregistered users may post in the Free Range Talk Forum

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Kansas House "religious freedom"
#1
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2014/feb/11...asure-cri/

So the Kansas House wants to make it possible for businesses to discriminate based on "religious principles." 

This is wrong on so many levels.

BUT - if a business wants to discriminate against gay folks with money to spend, that's fine.
Just please put a sign on your door stating such, the "right" to your "religious freedom," and
me and my money will go elsewhere, too. 

Don't hide your religious freedom, flaunt it.  So we can all know which businesses to support or not support. 
Reply
#2
I would like to see Liberty's take on this.  And this is a good example of why gammar is so important in our world.  If one does not grasp the difference between 'freedom of' and 'freedom from'...well, the preposition will you hang you in the end.  Mom, you are most correct.  The language in this bill will not restrict the whole thing to just gays.  It will open the door for wholesale discrimination when the haters figure out their "sincere objections".  It just sucks to think that government is trying to codify hate...again.  Are there 14th amendment issues here?  If passed is the state ready to ante up the thousands upon thousands to pay for the legal challenges?  We will end up spending more in defending unjust social engineering laws than we do educating our children.  I told my rep if he supported this monstrosity there will be hell to pay when he comes home.  All the educated people I know are against this one mightly.
Natural selection will never favor Evangelical misfits


Reply
#3
No way this law passes Constitutional muster.  
 
Reply
#4
Wow, #2, you took a reasonable position on an issue. That has to be a first.

(On edit-- sorry, can't keep your various numbered persona straight.)
Reply
#5
[Image: Screenshot2014-02-12at101407AM.png]

Islamic Society of Wichita
Reply
#6
And it continues.  http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/12/3284105...ponse.html

going to the senate. 

Man, it makes our state look really STUPID. 
Reply
#7
Yeah, kind of different.  I agree with number two also.  I cannot believe those tooshie hats passed that thing.  The Senate will rubber stamp as it is composed mainly of pea wit narrow minded solons...you know, like Abrams, King, Love, O'Donnell and the rest. 
Natural selection will never favor Evangelical misfits


Reply
#8
This is pure first amendment.  Governemnt shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  Forcing a catholic to provide contraceptives is such a law, as is forcing people to provide service to homsexuals if they consider that to be a sin.

I support gay marriage, but I support based on the same root laws that protect religion.

Should a Christian be forced to supply the wedding cake for my marriage, performed in the Church of Satan, and be forced to write on the cake "god is a lie"?

Of course, a business that cannot seperate it's policy from the religous bigotry of it's owners is pretty silly.  Gay money spends like any other.


 
 
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#9
(02-12-2014, 02:31 PM)'Liberty' Wrote: This is pure first amendment.  Governemnt shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  Forcing a catholic to provide contraceptives is such a law, as is forcing people to provide service to homsexuals if they consider that to be a sin.

I support gay marriage, but I support based on the same root laws that protect religion.

Should a Christian be forced to supply the wedding cake for my marriage, performed in the Church of Satan, and be forced to write on the cake "god is a lie"?

Of course, a business that cannot seperate it's policy from the religous bigotry of it's owners is pretty silly.  Gay money spends like any other.


 
 

 


I understand what you are saying.  But then again, slavery was based on religion, as was arguments against interracial marriage.  So sometimes the lines between religion and "religious beliefs" are blurred. 

I want businesses to put a sign that says "i will not serve gays" so i know NOT to go there.  Then again, once they refuse the right to serve someone, its gonna make headlines and we will all know what businesses to visit or not visit. 
 
Reply
#10
Well, that's part of the story.

The rest has to do with the various other rights that we have established for citizens.

So, if a religious believer doesn't want to serve coffee at their restaurant to a black person based on religious belief,...

The right to practice religion is limited in numerous ways - it's not absolute, or the only right we have.

Another part of this that bothers me is that those writing these bills haven't experienced the kind of discrimination they want to inflict on others - I'd like for them to be refused service, a loan, the ability to rent an apartment or buy a house, etc. based on religious views, and see how they feel about it then.

Perhaps the best solution to this sort of thing is for anti-gay folks to proclaim their beliefs loudly and proudly for all to see. If a photographer is asked to photograph a gay wedding, let them say "I feel that homosexuality is disgusting, and a sin, and all gay people are going to hell" - in fact, why not have them put it on their pr and advertising since that's more efficient?

Then all their customers can decide whether or not to patronize them.

One more little twist - I don't actually care what people "believe" about things like this, but I do care about what they do. So, if somebody believes the above about homosexuals, but would rent property to them, serve them at their restaurant, make a loan to them if they qualify, etc. I would still patronize their businesses. But if they use those beliefs to deny services, etc. in a mean spirited way, then I wouldn't.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Our Amazon Picks


Donate With PayPal