Religious Freedom Bill passed in Missisippi.

[Sunstone]

And you think it is fair to limit people's career options in this way thus not granting them the same rights as others. This says it all right there.

I'm glad EMTs don't have the option of refusing accident victims life saving aid on the basis of the victim's religious beliefs.

 

[nazz]

I think society has compelling reasons to ensure that people are not discriminated against on the basis of such things as sex, religion, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, and so forth.

Maybe you could point us to those cases where business owners have discriminated against gays for being gay and have demanded legal protection for their discrimination?

 

[4consideration]

This should go without saying or needing to write a law. One shouldn't need religious protection for lawsuits to be fair.

I agree.

The part where you quoted me was specifically addressing a comment about this talk about rights (like in this conversation) ignoring those things, so I was saying why I thought that was not the case.

 

[Sunstone]

Maybe you could point us to those cases where business owners have discriminated against gays for being gay and have demanded legal protection for their discrimination?

You're joking, right? Or do you really believe that gays have never been discriminated against for being gay? In which case, what planet are you from?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It does? I was not aware of that. I'm pretty sure CO status is only granted for religious reasons. But I could be wrong.

Today, the two main criteria for classification as a conscientious objector are that the objector must be opposed to war in any form, and the objection must be sincere. A 1971 United States Supreme Court decision, Gillette v. United States, broadened U.S. rules beyond religious belief but denied the inclusion of objections to specific wars as grounds for conscientious objection.[86]

Conscientious objector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So a pacifist anarchist would probably be allowed to opt out, but me as a communist who doesn't want to fight wars for the capitalist pigs probably wouldn't be allowed to because I'm not totally opposed to warfare. But the military doesn't allow trans people to serve openly so I would never be allowed in the military, anyway.

 

[nazz]

I'm glad EMTs don't have the option of refusing accident victims life saving aid on the basis of the victim's religious beliefs.

OK, valid point to some degree. But would it not be in their terms of service to provide medical care no matter what? That's not discriminatory. In this case we are talking about policies set by sole proprietorships. So apples and oranges.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First off, that is not even Christian teaching (even if you hear Christians say that). Jesus is quite clear that if one lusts after a (married) woman one has committed adultery in one's heart. Therefore by extension, if homosexual behavior is a sin then so are thoughts about homosexual activity.

Second the Christian Bible makes it clear that not only should one avoid sin one should not approve of others engaging in it (Rom 1:32). Now, is it beyond you to understand that providing goods/services for a same sex wedding would fall into that category for those who believe homosexuality to be a sin?

This is the ONLY issue that has come up. To my knowledge no one has refused gays service for being gay nor has anyone suggesting legal protection for such discrimination. That, and that alone, is the issue this legislation tries to address.

Stop making this about something it is not.

It sounds like you want the government to rule on what is and isn't "legitimately" Christian. If I was a Christian or a libertarian, that idea would freak me right out.

 

[nazz]

You're joking, right? Or do you really believe that gays have never been discriminated against for being gay? In which case, what planet are you from?

You did not answer my question. Go back and read it again.

 

[nazz]

It sounds like you want the government to rule on what is and isn't "legitimately" Christian.

Oh, for heaven's sake, of course not. I never even remotely suggested such a thing.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm glad EMTs don't have the option of refusing accident victims life saving aid on the basis of the victim's religious beliefs.

It's happened before, sadly:

Tyra Hunter (1970 – August 7, 1995) was an African-American pre-operative transsexual woman who died after being injured as a passenger in a car accident and being refused emergency medical care.[1][2] Emergency medical technicians at the scene of the accident uttered derogatory epithets and withdrew medical care after discovering that she had male genitalia, and ER staff at DC General Hospital subsequently provided dilatory and inadequate care.

Tyra Hunter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nazz]

Conscientious objector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So a pacifist anarchist would probably be allowed to opt out, but me as a communist who doesn't want to fight wars for the capitalist pigs probably wouldn't be allowed to because I'm not totally opposed to warfare. But the military doesn't allow trans people to serve openly so I would never be allowed in the military, anyway.

Hmm, I did not know this. Thanks.

 

[nazz]

Depends on what basis the florist refuses to provide flowers, doesn't it?

THAT is precisely the point I am making!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And you think it is fair to limit people's career options in this way thus not granting them the same rights as others. This says it all right there.

I'm suggesting that they have the same rights as anyone else.

Twice now, I've ended up in the position where I had an issue of conscience with either my employer or what I was being asked to do. Do you know how I resolved these issues? I quit. I didn't ask my employer to work around me; I just parted ways with them. People who have religious objections to their jobs can do the same.

 

[nazz]

If on the basis of their being Christians, that would violate their civil rights, no?

And all the people decrying this legislation would stand up and clap

 

[nazz]

I'm suggesting that they have the same rights as anyone else.

Twice now, I've ended up in the position where I had an issue of conscience with either my employer or what I was being asked to do. Do you know how I resolved these issues? I quit. I didn't ask my employer to work around me; I just parted ways with them. People who have religious objections to their jobs can do the same.

There is a big difference working for someone else and working for yourself and setting one's own policies.

 

[Sunstone]

You did not answer my question. Go back and read it again.

Your question doesn't deserve an answer anymore than "Are you sure the sky is blue? What proof have you?" deserves an answer.

 

[Mycroft]

THAT is precisely the point I am making!

If the Basis was that the teachings of Westboro Baptist Church offend him, then the florist should be taken to court. And vice-versa.

Like I said. Discrimination is discrimination. The gay florist might not like westboro baptist church or what they preach, but he has no right to discriminate against them. That is why you have a 1st amendment, yes? Just as with the anti-gay christians, the christian florist would have to just deal with it.

Just like the schools and university the westboro baptist kids have attended have had to over the years.

 

[Sunstone]

And all the people decrying this legislation would stand up and clap

Don't you think it's arrogant to pretend to read the minds of everyone decrying this legislation. I'm out of here. I can deal with honest differences of opinion. But when you try to smear everyone, you're just reducing this to a kindergarten debate.

 

[nazz]

Your question doesn't deserve an answer anymore than "Are you sure the sky is blue? What proof have you?" deserves an answer.

okay, if that's your attitude. I guess you can just pretend there are business out there demanding such legal protection to refuse gays service on the basis on being gay.

 

[nazz]

Don't you think it's arrogant to pretend to read the minds of everyone decrying this legislation. I'm out of here. I can deal with honest differences of opinion. But when you try to smear everyone, you're just reducing this to a kindergarten debate.

I'm sorry but it would not surprise me in the least if that happened.