"Heterosexuals Only"

[Mycroft]

I just don't understand where America gets off on this sort of thing. I think if you're using your religion to harm and hurt (denying employment to those who may need it is harmful and hurtful) then you're doing it wrong.

I think more people need to ask themselves: what would Jesus do?


And from a politicalpoint of view, isn't America supposed to be the Land of the Free? Where anyone can be anything and do anything and become anything? (Of course it isn't and never has been) I think if you start denying people employment/rights based on sexuality than it goes against the spirit in which the Founding Fathers of America originally had for their vision of the place.

 

[dawny0826]

A new bill in Kansas that is trying to be passed wants to make it legal for businesses to refuse service to homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) if it goes against their religious beliefs.

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf

What's your take on this? Do you think it should be a business owners right to display a sign on their front window that says "Heterosexuals Only"? (Not that they would actually do that. But essentially gives them the right to do so)

The concept of "legal" discrimination bothers me intensely.

But, I'm not sure that the bill really seeks to accomplish this. I think its purpose is to protect the rights of the religious as well as consumers and business entities in situations where there's a conflict of religious interest.

An American's right to freedom of religion isn't dropped when they leave home for work in the morning. For instance, if a makeup artist has a gig for a wedding and the couple is homosexual, he might face a problem if performing such a service would be a direct violation of his own religious beliefs.

If his employer expected him to provide the service anyway, would that not be a form of discrimination in and of itself?

And the homosexual couple should not feel discriminated against either. The business should be able to accommodate both the employee and couple to avoid such a situation.

I thought the bill kind of touched on this sort of thing. I don't see this bill, if passed, translating as "heterosexual only" signs in a shop window. I think it instills protections for individuals and business entities.

It also sets an expectation for government and nonreligious entities, as to how services should be rendered in such situations to avoid penalty.

if an individual employed by a governmental entity or other nonreligious entity invokes any of the protections provided by section 1, and amendments thereto, as a basis for declining to provide a lawful service that is otherwise consistent with the entity's duties or policies, the individual's employer

​

​

, in directing the performance of such service, shall either promptly provide another employee to provide such service, or shall otherwise ensure that the requested service is provided, if it can be done without undue hardship to the employer.​

 

[ZooGirl02]

My take on it is that such a law is needed in order to protect religious freedom. But then again, such laws shouldn't even need to be passed since freedom of religion is already guaranteed by the federal Constitution.

But already a photographer, baker, and florist have been sued for refusing to provide service to "gay weddings" based on their religious beliefs. Their religious freedom was violated. That is one reason why such laws are desperately needed.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Do people in Kansas walk around with neon signs saying they're gay or are the business owners going to put a guard at the door and make every customer sign a document declaring their sexual orientation which is completely irrelevant for the business anyway?

"sorry buddy, but you look kind of effeminate to me...
Before I sell you this Toblerone and soda, you're going to have to make love to my wife first..
AND YOU BETTER ENJOY IT!"

 

[Awkward Fingers]

My take on it is that such a law is needed in order to protect religious freedom. But then again, such laws shouldn't even need to be passed since freedom of religion is already guaranteed by the federal Constitution.

But already a photographer, baker, and florist have been sued for refusing to provide service to "gay weddings" based on their religious beliefs. Their religious freedom was violated. That is one reason why such laws are desperately needed.

Were they being told they had to have gay sex while baking the cake for the couple?
If so, I totally agree that it was a violation of their rights.. If not, in was wondering if you could point out what Bible passage is being revered to, where providing a service violates your religious rights...

I seen to remember bits like "ALL sin is equal in the eyes of god"..and "we are ALL sinners"..
So why are only the sinners having homosexual marriages get singled out by Christians?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well that's the really curious part... Why would anyone intentionally turn away business? As a (misguided) moral stand?

How completely retarded.

This is what I was thinking.

 

[fantome profane]

My take on it is that such a law is needed in order to protect religious freedom. But then again, such laws shouldn't even need to be passed since freedom of religion is already guaranteed by the federal Constitution.

But already a photographer, baker, and florist have been sued for refusing to provide service to "gay weddings" based on their religious beliefs. Their religious freedom was violated. That is one reason why such laws are desperately needed.

The bill overreaches. It could be used to deny someone employment, or even evict them from their homes.

But already a photographer, baker, and florist have been sued

Link?

 

[Me Myself]

The %^~%^ idiocy.

Thats my take on it.

 

[Ingledsva]

My take on it is that such a law is needed in order to protect religious freedom. But then again, such laws shouldn't even need to be passed since freedom of religion is already guaranteed by the federal Constitution.

But already a photographer, baker, and florist have been sued for refusing to provide service to "gay weddings" based on their religious beliefs. Their religious freedom was violated. That is one reason why such laws are desperately needed.

Personally, I think they should be sued.


The things you mentioned are not part of a religion.


Taking photos of gay couples, or doing their makeup, or selling them a cake, - is not in any way - a sin for the Christian doing so.


Only things actually stated in the text, and "accepted," (and legal of course) as part of the religion, should reasonably apply, - such as Christian preachers - shouldn't have to do gay marriages.


Not providing housing, jobs, or normal services, is just Christians being petty and mean spirited. They obviously forgot Jesus' message of love.



I forgot to add - in like kind - are they going to do a background check on all people coming in for a wedding cake, to make sure they aren't getting married a second time and therefore breaking the religious law - and living in sin as adulterous prostitutes?




*

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The concept of "legal" discrimination bothers me intensely.

But, I'm not sure that the bill really seeks to accomplish this. I think its purpose is to protect the rights of the religious as well as consumers and business entities in situations where there's a conflict of religious interest.

An American's right to freedom of religion isn't dropped when they leave home for work in the morning. For instance, if a makeup artist has a gig for a wedding and the couple is homosexual, he might face a problem if performing such a service would be a direct violation of his own religious beliefs.

If his employer expected him to provide the service anyway, would that not be a form of discrimination in and of itself?

I don't see how. The manager isn't fabricating these same-sex weddings to harass the makeup artist; they're a legitimate part of the job.

Edit: unless you're talking about conscription, freedom of religion doesn't even enter into the picture. The employee was free not to take the job in the first place and is free to quit, so freedom of religion is maintained.

And the homosexual couple should not feel discriminated against either. The business should be able to accommodate both the employee and couple to avoid such a situation.

The situation can be avoided by the employee not accepting the position and not taking a paycheque when they're not willing to perform the duties of the job. I'm not sure why distaste for same-sex marriage on the part of some Christians should deserve any more protection than the distaste for handling bacon on the part of a Muslim cook at Denny's (i.e. no protection at all).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My take on it is that such a law is needed in order to protect religious freedom. But then again, such laws shouldn't even need to be passed since freedom of religion is already guaranteed by the federal Constitution.

But already a photographer, baker, and florist have been sued for refusing to provide service to "gay weddings" based on their religious beliefs. Their religious freedom was violated. That is one reason why such laws are desperately needed.

How was this a violation of their religious freedom? Were they forced to start their businesses?

What if they had been refusing to provide service to interracial marriages on religious grounds? Would you still defend them?

 

[Mycroft]

My take on it is that such a law is needed in order to protect religious freedom.

And what of Freedom of Sexuality? I think that if the freedom's and rights of others must be sacrificed in order to protect religious freedom, then that religion is perhaps not worth protecting in the first place.

The Right to a Religion merely encompasses your freedom to gather in the churches, the mosques, the synagogues without prevention by any one person or agency. What it does not do is enable religious people to act with prejudice and bigotry toward certain groups of people, which is precisely what this is. The religious have a right to deny goods and services to homosexuals if they feel they must, but it is folly to dress it up as 'protecting your freedom' when it is, simply, prejudice and bigotry. And if the religious do engage in this behaviour, must do so knowing that it is against the spirit of why America was created.

 

[Mycroft]

It appears the bill got the death knell it deserves: http://www.politicususa.com/2014/02/15/kansas-senate-senses-nixes-extreme-anti-gay-legislation.html

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I, for one, would like to know which businesses want to turn away business from homosexuals so that I can take my business elsewhere.

 

[crossfire]

I, for one, would like to know which businesses want to turn away business from homosexuals so that I can take my business elsewhere.

Me too. :yes:

 

[Me Myself]

My take on it is that such a law is needed in order to protect religious freedom. But then again, such laws shouldn't even need to be passed since freedom of religion is already guaranteed by the federal Constitution.

But already a photographer, baker, and florist have been sued for refusing to provide service to "gay weddings" based on their religious beliefs. Their religious freedom was violated. That is one reason why such laws are desperately needed.

If they provide a service of religious weddings, not legal ones, then I agree they should not be sued as the government cant tell you who your religion can marry or cannot.

If they provide legal wedding services then there is grounding for the suying though.

I could choose my religion is against paying taxes in general, guess how important will that be for the government?

If my religion said I could have slaves, guess how much the law should care if it was my religion or not that told me I could have slaves?

Its a no brainer. The book says homosexuals should be put to death, not denied services so it doesnt have to do with religion already anyways. It has to do with contempt. This is not acceptable either.

 

[dawny0826]

I don't see how. The manager isn't fabricating these same-sex weddings to harass the makeup artist; they're a legitimate part of the job.

I created the scenario. I know what the job entails. The manager and employee were straight on the tasks that the employee could not perform. Got it?

Edit: unless you're talking about conscription, freedom of religion doesn't even enter into the picture. The employee was free not to take the job in the first place and is free to quit, so freedom of religion is maintained.

Freedom of religion does enter the picture if anyone is being discriminated against based upon their religious beliefs.

The situation can be avoided by the employee not accepting the position and not taking a paycheque when they're not willing to perform the duties of the job. I'm not sure why distaste for same-sex marriage on the part of some Christians should deserve any more protection than the distaste for handling bacon on the part of a Muslim cook at Denny's (i.e. no protection at all).

We have the right in America to discuss religious restrictions openly. An employer has the choice to either hire or not to hire contingent upon the employee's ability to do a job. If an employer hires an employee on any condition, understanding that the employee could not do specific tasks, there wouldn't be a problem, Jeff.

The employer would be responsible for utilizing another artist for the job or making other accommodations for the couple.

The concept is to avoid a discriminative situation for everyone.

I'm not arrogant enough to say that I've got this "right". This is my interpretation and application of this bill. If you don't agree with me, that's fine.

Edit: Looks like the bill was axed. There you go.

 

[averageJOE]

It appears the bill got the death knell it deserves: http://www.politicususa.com/2014/02/15/kansas-senate-senses-nixes-extreme-anti-gay-legislation.html

:clap

It's a good thing too. The people in favor of that bill were in favor of going backwards in social diversity.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I created the scenario. I know what the job entails. The manager and employee were straight on the tasks that the employee could not perform. Got it?



Freedom of religion does enter the picture if anyone is being discriminated against based upon their religious beliefs.



We have the right in America to discuss religious restrictions openly. An employer has the choice to either hire or not to hire contingent upon the employee's ability to do a job. If an employer hires an employee on any condition, understanding that the employee could not do specific tasks, there wouldn't be a problem, Jeff.

The employer would be responsible for utilizing another artist for the job or making other accommodations for the couple.

The concept is to avoid a discriminative situation for everyone.
.

Edit: Looks like the bill was axed. There you go.

So where would the line be?
If I was a business owner and this law HAD passed, would it be ok to ask employees if they were fundamental xtians, and refuse to hire them, if I thought they would be unable to perform their duties when confronted with a homosexual couple? Or would THAT be discrimination, when refusing service apparently isn't?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I created the scenario. I know what the job entails. The manager and employee were straight on the tasks that the employee could not perform. Got it?

No, I don't, because we already have a whole class of law that covers agreements between parties: contract law. If, in this scenario, the manager and the employee agreed that the employee wouldn't have to work with gay couples but the manager makes the employee work with them anyway, then the manager is in breach of contract.

Freedom of religion does enter the picture if anyone is being discriminated against based upon their religious beliefs.

But where's the discrimination? I really don't see it.

We have the right in America to discuss religious restrictions openly. An employer has the choice to either hire or not to hire contingent upon the employee's ability to do a job. If an employer hires an employee on any condition, understanding that the employee could not do specific tasks, there wouldn't be a problem, Jeff.

The employer would be responsible for utilizing another artist for the job or making other accommodations for the couple.

But religion isn't unique in this regard, and existing law already covers this sort of concern. If an employer and an employee make an agreement that the employee won't have to work evenings, or with clients that create a conflict of interest, or with gay people, existing law provides that employee with recourse if the employer disregards the agreement.

These sorts of laws only protect dishonest employees who accept the terms of the job but then refuse to carry them out.