GOPers pass law okaying business discrimination against gays

[n_huffhines]

Like murder and rape! Ok thanks for clearing that up.

No, it's not. It's an act of exclusion, not an act of aggression.

 

[CSpindizzy]

No.

What is discrimination? It's just a choice. When you discriminate in means you pick one over the other. We discriminate all day, every day, as we make choices. The idea that government can tell us when we can discriminate and when we can't is in opposition to a free society.

In the absence of law, there is freedom. This is not a state passing a law to discriminate. It's a state restoring the freedom to choose.

Laws against discrimination are brought about by lazy people who don't have any original ideas about changing society. Society changes from within. Government doesn't change us much...not in any way that they intend to.

Now come on you bigots. Come out and identify yourselves.

This is a state passing a law to discriminate. This bill is designed for Christians to get a pass. ONLY those for religious reasons. This law has created a special class getting special protection. The law itself discriminates on who gets to discriminate without legal repercussions. Very few people are understanding the limits this bill sets on "freedoms".

 

[hog88]

Like murder and rape! Ok thanks for clearing that up.

Would you feel better and get your panties out of the wad they are in if the bill simply allowed anyone for any reason to discriminate?

 

[hog88]

This is a state passing a law to discriminate. This bill is designed for Christians to get a pass. ONLY those for religious reasons. This law has created a special class getting special protection. The law itself discriminates on who gets to discriminate without legal repercussions. Very few people are understanding the limits this bill sets on "freedoms".

Bingo.

 

[FLVOL_79]

No, it's not. It's an act of exclusion, not an act of aggression.

I doesn't matter what category the act falls under, it is all still a choice. You can't pick and choose what constitutes a choice to support your narrative. Well, I mean you can but it doesn't mean you are right.

An act of aggression, compassion, exclusion..none of it is involuntary. Humans make a choice. And unfortunately most humans make the wrong choices. Most people are pretty dumb as well, hence why we have rules like "murdering is bad mmkay" and anti-discrimination rules. Society needs rules. Humans need structure.

 

[joevol320]

Yeah, I don't really get that. When did Jesus say, "thou shalt not make cake for sinners you hate"?

why are these homos choosing Christian bakers, photographers when they are plenty of homo bakers, photographers that provide the same services. You don't question this, because you'd rather anything evangelical.

this what you fools don't understand. you bash groups for standing their beliefs, but you don't question the motives behind the people who are causing it.

 

[gcbvol]

No.

What is discrimination? It's just a choice. When you discriminate in means you pick one over the other. We discriminate all day, every day, as we make choices. The idea that government can tell us when we can discriminate and when we can't is in opposition to a free society.

In the absence of law, there is freedom. This is not a state passing a law to discriminate. It's a state restoring the freedom to choose.

Laws against discrimination are brought about by lazy people who don't have any original ideas about changing society. Society changes from within. Government doesn't change us much...not in any way that they intend to.

Now come on you bigots. Come out and identify yourselves.

If this specific legislation had a broader scope I would be more inclined to agree. This, however, was intended and written to protect the ability of only the religious to discriminate (or choose to deny service). It was designed to protect one group (not everyone) from another group (think glitter). Any freedom restored (I didn't realize it was missing) by passing this new law (seems ironic) is a happy accident. Political pandering, nothing more.

I do get your broader point and do not disagree. This specific legislation, however, is not about that. It has been bigoted from start to finish and should not be lauded (my opinion).

 

[joevol320]

This is a state passing a law to discriminate. This bill is designed for Christians to get a pass. ONLY those for religious reasons. This law has created a special class getting special protection. The law itself discriminates on who gets to discriminate without legal repercussions. Very few people are understanding the limits this bill sets on "freedoms".

are you discriminating against some who doesn't have money to pay for services. technically you are.

the fact is being home is a choice, it's not a matter of race or gender, but it's a choice. would you owned a bakery and NAMBLA wanted a cake bake for one their parties, you should have the right to chose.

if you don't know what NAMBLA is, ask septic. he knows all about it.

 

[joevol320]

If this specific legislation had a broader scope I would be more inclined to agree. This, however, was intended and written to protect the ability of only the religious to discriminate (or choose to deny service). It was designed to protect one group (not everyone) from another group (think glitter). Any freedom restored (I didn't realize it was missing) by passing this new law (seems ironic) is a happy accident. Political pandering, nothing more.

I do get your broader point and do not disagree. This specific legislation, however, is not about that. It has been bigoted from start to finish and should not be lauded (my opinion).

nothing bigoted about it son.

 

[CSpindizzy]

are you discriminating against some who doesn't have money to pay for services. technically you are.

the fact is being home is a choice, it's not a matter of race or gender, but it's a choice. would you owned a bakery and NAMBLA wanted a cake bake for one their parties, you should have the right to chose.

if you don't know what NAMBLA is, ask septic. he knows all about it.

So you are fine with a law creating a special group with special rights? You believe in the law and government having the ability to create classes of people that exempts them from some things but does not exempt everyone? Because in this case lawsuits can still continue for discrimination on other items beside race. If you're fine with the conservative Christians who don't like gays having a protected status higher than everyone else just say so.

In your NAMBLA example, if some non-religious person discriminated against a "NAMBLA cake" they can still be sued. If a conservative Christian opposed to this group on religious reasons discriminated, they are protected under this act. Are you telling me you agree with special status from one group over everyone else?

 

[bamawriter]

So you are fine with a law creating a special group with special rights? You believe in the law and government having the ability to create classes of people that exempts them from some things but does not exempt everyone? Because in this case lawsuits can still continue for discrimination on other items beside race. If you're fine with the conservative Christians who don't like gays having a protected status higher than everyone else just say so.

Does the law say that a Muslim-owned business can't discriminate against gays? I haven't read the law, but your past several posts indicate that it carves out an exception for bigoted Christians, but not bigots of any other religious stripe.

 

[FLVOL_79]

why are these homos choosing Christian bakers, photographers when they are plenty of homo bakers, photographers that provide the same services. You don't question this, because you'd rather anything evangelical.

this what you fools don't understand. you bash groups for standing their beliefs, but you don't question the motives behind the people who are causing it.

What beliefs? What belief do christians cite as to justify denying a service to someone because of who they have sex with?

Its literally like none of you can provide any religious evidence to justify discrimination.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Does the law say that a Muslim-owned business can't discriminate against gays? I haven't read the law, but your past several posts indicate that it carves out an exception for bigoted Christians, but not bigots of any other religious stripe.

All religion is included. But this intent and design is based on Christians in relation to gays. Here in GA we've even seen some of the legislators expressing concern over Muslims and other non-Christian groups from taking advantage of this. It's one reason why the legislation keeps going through a review process with legal counsel. Some of these guys are afraid of how broad it could get.

At the end of the day, the law clearly limits this to religious purposes. It is not a broad based piece of legislation. It is targeted to a specific group giving that specific group protections that others do not have. How many businesses operate on religious purposes? How many customers shop on religious purposes?

 

[FLVOL_79]

So you are fine with a law creating a special group with special rights? You believe in the law and government having the ability to create classes of people that exempts them from some things but does not exempt everyone? Because in this case lawsuits can still continue for discrimination on other items beside race. If you're fine with the conservative Christians who don't like gays having a protected status higher than everyone else just say so.

In your NAMBLA example, if some non-religious person discriminated against a "NAMBLA cake" they can still be sued. If a conservative Christian opposed to this group on religious reasons discriminated, they are protected under this act. Are you telling me you agree with special status from one group over everyone else?

What does the North American Marlon Brando Look Alike association have to do with anything?

 

[joevol320]

So you are fine with a law creating a special group with special rights? You believe in the law and government having the ability to create classes of people that exempts them from some things but does not exempt everyone? Because in this case lawsuits can still continue for discrimination on other items beside race. If you're fine with the conservative Christians who don't like gays having a protected status higher than everyone else just say so.

In your NAMBLA example, if some non-religious person discriminated against a "NAMBLA cake" they can still be sued. If a conservative Christian opposed to this group on religious reasons discriminated, they are protected under this act. Are you telling me you agree with special status from one group over everyone else?

your problem is that you equate homosexuality as the same as being black, or a female. homosexuality it's a choice, just as adultery, etc.. you're trying to make it a civil right but it' apples and oranges. you're wanting to give special status and preferred status to gay as you would black or other minority groups. you can't have it both ways.

Christians do not hate gays, it's the lifestyle they disagree with, just as they should with adulterer, etc... yet you refuse to accept this. you'd rather call Christians homophobes, etc... because they don't support or lift up that lifestyle.

 

[n_huffhines]

I doesn't matter what category the act falls under, it is all still a choice. You can't pick and choose what constitutes a choice to support your narrative. Well, I mean you can but it doesn't mean you are right.

An act of aggression, compassion, exclusion..none of it is involuntary. Humans make a choice. And unfortunately most humans make the wrong choices. Most people are pretty dumb as well, hence why we have rules like "murdering is bad mmkay" and anti-discrimination rules. Society needs rules. Humans need structure.

WTF is your point in all this nonsense? Murder is a choice, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[joevol320]

cspindizz, do you really think a judge would force a muslim to provide services to a gay couple or allow them to use their mosque? if they did, the muslim community would go crazy and they would put a stop it. it will never happen though because most liberal judges would only rule against the Christian businesses.

 

[n_huffhines]

This is a state passing a law to discriminate. This bill is designed for Christians to get a pass. ONLY those for religious reasons. This law has created a special class getting special protection. The law itself discriminates on who gets to discriminate without legal repercussions. Very few people are understanding the limits this bill sets on "freedoms".

Not really. Anybody can claim religious reasons. It's not just Christians. Atheists can claim religious reasons.

Not sure how this bill limits freedom. Even if it only allows a specific group more freedom, that's not a limit of freedom caused by the bill.

You make interesting points. Either way, the bill is not going to fly.

 

[n_huffhines]

why are these homos choosing Christian bakers, photographers when they are plenty of homo bakers, photographers that provide the same services. You don't question this, because you'd rather anything evangelical.

Each with his own kind, move along.

this what you fools don't understand. you bash groups for standing their beliefs, but you don't question the motives behind the people who are causing it.

Who cares about the motives of the people trying to give Christian bakers money?

 

[CSpindizzy]

your problem is that you equate homosexuality as the same as being black, or a female. homosexuality it's a choice, just as adultery, etc.. you're trying to make it a civil right but it' apples and oranges. you're wanting to give special status and preferred status to gay as you would black or other minority groups. you can't have it both ways.

Christians do not hate gays, it's the lifestyle they disagree with, just as they should with adulterer, etc... yet you refuse to accept this. you'd rather call Christians homophobes, etc... because they don't support or lift up that lifestyle.

I'm not equating anything. I am speaking on this law and the intent of many behind these laws across the country. If you want to debate homosexuality find another sparring partner. I'm not giving special status to anyone. I am solely directing my argument at this particular law. So both ways argument can be flipped back at you. You don't like gay rights but want special rights for these people over everyone else.

Stick to the issue at hand - this law selects a group of people, solely based on religious views. It sets them apart. It sets people apart based on practicing their religious views on selecting customers (not all religious people screen their customers like this). This particular group is separated from the rest of society and handed special status. They are protected from lawsuits if they discriminate against any customers based on religious reasons. Again, you don't like gay rights? YOU can't have it both ways.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Not really. Anybody can claim religious reasons. It's not just Christians. Atheists can claim religious reasons.

Not sure how this bill limits freedom. Even if it only allows a specific group more freedom, that's not a limit of freedom caused by the bill.

You make interesting points. Either way, the bill is not going to fly.

So what you are saying that before this bill, freedom was fine as it was? This bill picks a group out and providing this group shows their discrimination was based on religious reasons they are exempt from lawsuits. The guy just not wanting to serve gays just because he hates gays can still be sued. The guy not wanting to serve gays for religious reasons is protected. The first guy remains as it was prior to the law. He can be sued and potentially lose a lot of money and more than likely his business. The second guy sits back and remains protected.

I guess everyone just "joined" a church that covers their hatred/dislike for a specific group.

 

[MercyPercy]

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why homosexuality is always the targeted sin that Christians feel the need to discriminate against. You never really hear any stories about bakeries refusing service to adulterers, liars, people who take the lord's name in vain, the jealous, etc. And yet time and time again, it's been argued on here that Christians do not fixate on homosexuality over other sin. They say that pedestal they've created doesn't exist.

Surely this is evidence to the contrary(not that anyone who has been paying attention needed any more evidence).

 

[MG1968]

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why homosexuality is always the targeted sin that Christians feel the need to discriminate against. You never really hear any stories about bakeries refusing service to adulterers, liars, people who take the lord's name in vain, the jealous, etc. And yet time abid time again, it's been argued on here that Christians do not fixate on homosexuality over other sin. They say that pedestal they've created doesn't exist.

Sure this is evidence to the contrary(not that anyone who has been paying attention needed any more evidence).

don't forget female teachers and farmers who plant two crops in the same field

 

[CSpindizzy]

cspindizz, do you really think a judge would force a muslim to provide services to a gay couple or allow them to use their mosque? if they did, the muslim community would go crazy and they would put a stop it. it will never happen though because most liberal judges would only rule against the Christian businesses.

You are basically proving my point AND still acknowledging this is a religiously based law - one special group and class. And you are fixated on homosexuality here. Are you saying this law also only revolves around gay customers and no other types?

 

[n_huffhines]

Honestly, I don't like it but being fair to those legislators, there is no way you can justify this bill to the public outside of the name of religion. Meaning, if these same people said, "We should aim to be a free society, and that includes ugly things, like the right to discriminate" they would get flamed like nobody's business. It would be political suicide for everyone involved.

Make it in the name of religion, and you can justify it to some degree. I am pretty sure they wanted to go broader than religion, but this is all they saw as feasible (and even this won't work).