What the Arizona Bill is really about.

[Mycroft]

Christianity has come under fire for a new bill that was introduced allowing "business owners to refuse to sell or provide services to gays and “others” on religious beliefs."

But is it really about that? I don't think so. I don't find evidence of a mass protest by the religious sector against gay people even in America.
What I do find, however, is a group of right-wing politicians hijacking religion in order to secure their own homophobic and, ultimately, totalitarian agendas.

Would you agree or disagree?

 

[Alceste]

I disagree. The US is home to a large number of Christian organizations (e.g. Focus on the Family) whose sole purpose is to persecute gays, spread malicious anti-gay propaganda and maintain their second class status in society. The ideological union between these groups and the Republican party is equally appreciated by both groups. The GOP gets the automatic, unthinking support of members of anti-gay religions and anti-gay Christian groups get legislation persecuting gays passed by the politicians they have access to.

Promoting bigotry is great politics. The GOP have it down to a science. Wherever there's a popular feeling of xenophobia in the US (immigration, Islam, homosexuality), you can bet the GOP is up to their elbows churning out propaganda turning that mistrust into a panic-inducing national crisis. Any group that is already churning out that kind of propaganda, like Christianity, is a natural ally.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No one is stopping anyone from practicing their religion. We are simply not letting their religion step into the bounds of someone else's civil rights.

However in Arizona they have claimed the religious rights of the majority to be more important than the civil liberties of a minority. Simple as that.

Though I wonder what would happen if two conflicting religious rights were to hit head on. Would the bigger religion walk away the victor?

 

[Mycroft]

No one is stopping anyone from practicing their religion. We are simply not letting their religion step into the bounds of someone else's civil rights.

However in Arizona they have claimed the religious rights of the majority to be more important than the civil liberties of a minority. Simple as that.

Though I wonder what would happen if two conflicting religious rights were to hit head on. Would the bigger religion walk away the victor?

Who is 'they'?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Who is 'they'?

The ones who made the law. I don't know the specific ones who voted for it or wrote the bill. I don't know the exact name of their supporters. I am reluctant to simply say "the religious conservative extreme" or any such nonsense because it over simplifies the issue.

"They" is used simply to represent the identity of those who have crafted, supported and enabled such a travesty to pass into our laws.

 

[Mycroft]

The ones who made the law.

Who are "the ones who made the law"?

Of what religion (if any) are they?

It's very easy to ascribe blame to a religious right-wing nutjob when the lawmakers and votes are, essentially, anonymous. Perhaps the law was written by someone who merely claims to be Christian (as many Americans do) but have no actual belief in God. Perhap it's merely a right-wing nutjob using religion to further his or her own homophobic agendas?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Who supported it? Who sponsered it? Who cares I say. It's wrong.

Let me ask, if the premese is a person shouldn't be forced to serve someone that...is against their religion, then why can't they stop serving muslims or athiests?

After all, what is more anti-christian? A sinner or someone who deniys the christ?

 

[Mycroft]

Who cares I say. It's wrong.

Well I care, because the people dreaming this stuff up need routing out of their positions of power.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Obviously, this is an anti theist mastermind hiding in the GOP stealthily steering religious rights and civil rights into a game of chicken, just as the LGBT movement if accepting a majority acceptance., in an attempt to do away with the first amendment, once he can show its no longer compatable with society, based on the archaic build of religion.

We're all his puppets!!!!
RUN!!!

 

[Reverend Rick]

No one is stopping anyone from practicing their religion. We are simply not letting their religion step into the bounds of someone else's civil rights.

However in Arizona they have claimed the religious rights of the majority to be more important than the civil liberties of a minority. Simple as that.

Though I wonder what would happen if two conflicting religious rights were to hit head on. Would the bigger religion walk away the victor?

Sadly, yes.

 

[Nakosis]

Christianity has come under fire for a new bill that was introduced allowing "business owners to refuse to sell or provide services to gays and “others” on religious beliefs."

But is it really about that? I don't think so. I don't find evidence of a mass protest by the religious sector against gay people even in America.
What I do find, however, is a group of right-wing politicians hijacking religion in order to secure their own homophobic and, ultimately, totalitarian agendas.

Would you agree or disagree?

Seems pretty un-christ-like to me.

Make one wonder who these "Christians" think they are really representing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Who are "the ones who made the law"?

Of what religion (if any) are they?

It's very easy to ascribe blame to a religious right-wing nutjob when the lawmakers and votes are, essentially, anonymous. Perhaps the law was written by someone who merely claims to be Christian (as many Americans do) but have no actual belief in God. Perhap it's merely a right-wing nutjob using religion to further his or her own homophobic agendas?

why does it matter?

 

[Mycroft]

why does it matter?

Because without knowing the 'they' behind the 'law', we can only make assumptions, which is not an efficient way of dealing with the problem. How, for example, do we know that these 'they' of which you speak are actually religious at all? How do we know that this bill has anything to do wiith religious freedom at all, and is not merely a right-wing hijacking of religion to meet other agendas? And how do we get this 'they' from their position of power so that they can't do anything like this again in some other way?

 

[SkylarHunter]

The fact that someone had the idea to make a stupid law like this is proof of how rare common sense really is.
Let’s imagine that a gay couple enters a bakery because they are going to get married and want a wedding cake. The owner of the bakery politely explains that gay marriage is something his religion doesn’t approve off and he doesn’t want to go against his personal beliefs. He apologizes for not being able to provide the service and gives them a list of other bakeries where they can get their cake. Now, the couple can accept the fact that some people are against gay marriage and respect the baker’s view or they can go cry discrimination to the authorities, newspapers, twitter, facebook, etc and make a big circus about it.
The same way gay people are entitled to live as they want, so do Christians and everyone else. I can’t imagine forcing Muslim restaurant owners to put pork in their menus. Someone who wants pork can find plenty of choices in other restaurants. That’s life and that’s business.
I’m a Christian and I have gay friends and colleagues. I don’t approve of their lifestyle but I appreciate their qualities and like them for the great people they are. When one of them invites me to a gay wedding I politely and respectfully explain my views and they normally accept that I don’t want to participate in something that makes me uncomfortable and goes against my beliefs.
I am not going to start applauding and celebrating people being gay, I’ll leave that to Hollywood, but I don’t turn my back on them or insult them or humiliate them. They have as much right to being respected and loved as anyone else. I love my gay friends and they never felt discriminated by me, but I’m not going to ignore my faith and start behaving against my beliefs either. There are ways to keep things balanced; it really is a matter of common sense.

 

[Sees]

The fact that someone had the idea to make a stupid law like this is proof of how rare common sense really is.
Let’s imagine that a gay couple enters a bakery because they are going to get married and want a wedding cake. The owner of the bakery politely explains that gay marriage is something his religion doesn’t approve off and he doesn’t want to go against his personal beliefs. He apologizes for not being able to provide the service and gives them a list of other bakeries where they can get their cake. Now, the couple can accept the fact that some people are against gay marriage and respect the baker’s view or they can go cry discrimination to the authorities, newspapers, twitter, facebook, etc and make a big circus about it.
The same way gay people are entitled to live as they want, so do Christians and everyone else. I can’t imagine forcing Muslim restaurant owners to put pork in their menus. Someone who wants pork can find plenty of choices in other restaurants. That’s life and that’s business.
I’m a Christian and I have gay friends and colleagues. I don’t approve of their lifestyle but I appreciate their qualities and like them for the great people they are. When one of them invites me to a gay wedding I politely and respectfully explain my views and they normally accept that I don’t want to participate in something that makes me uncomfortable and goes against my beliefs.
I am not going to start applauding and celebrating people being gay, I’ll leave that to Hollywood, but I don’t turn my back on them or insult them or humiliate them. They have as much right to being respected and loved as anyone else. I love my gay friends and they never felt discriminated by me, but I’m not going to ignore my faith and start behaving against my beliefs either. There are ways to keep things balanced; it really is a matter of common sense.

You seem to describe acts of discrimination here as though they are not acts of discrimination

 

[HonestJoe]

I don't think it's about politicians using religion as such. I think the people who hold these positions do so as an honest socio-cultural opinion and their personal religious beliefs are an element of that (that isn't to same there aren't plenty of political games played in the detail).

I don’t think it's positive to present it as either "Christians attacking homosexuality" or "politicians hijacking religion". I'd suggest that most Christians and even most nominally "conservative" politicians have no desire to discriminate against homosexuals in the way this bill seeks to permit (not insignificant number of both groups will be homosexual themselves anyway).

It's much more constructive to focus on the specific individuals and exactly what they're saying and doing. After all, generalising it in the kind of manner suggested is a key element of what is wrong with their position.

 

[bobhikes]

I disagree. The US is home to a large number of Christian organizations (e.g. Focus on the Family) whose sole purpose is to persecute gays, spread malicious anti-gay propaganda and maintain their second class status in society. The ideological union between these groups and the Republican party is equally appreciated by both groups. The GOP gets the automatic, unthinking support of members of anti-gay religions and anti-gay Christian groups get legislation persecuting gays passed by the politicians they have access to.

Promoting bigotry is great politics. The GOP have it down to a science. Wherever there's a popular feeling of xenophobia in the US (immigration, Islam, homosexuality), you can bet the GOP is up to their elbows churning out propaganda turning that mistrust into a panic-inducing national crisis. Any group that is already churning out that kind of propaganda, like Christianity, is a natural ally.

I would agree with the topic but this reply is why it is happening. The extremes are threating each other and the moderate majority. The moderate majority feels it has to side with one of the extremes you either are or you are against. The moderate majority is afraid of being outed as a traitor and as such an outcast.

The moderates need to make a stand and give a time out to all extreme groups but motivating the moderates is extremely hard to do. The moderates are generally concerned with their day to day life.

 

[SkylarHunter]

You seem to describe acts of discrimination here as though they are not acts of discrimination

Not really, but I guess that's subject to interpretation. I simply would like to be able to refuse participating in things that go against my beliefs without being tagged as racist/homophobic which, by the way, I don't think I am.

Let me explain with a simple example. If I had a restaurant and gay people came over for a meal and a coffee I would serve them happily and would see them just like any other customer. Having a meal is something normal for everyone, humans need to eat and there's no connection between eating and sexual orientation. If the same gay people asked me to host their wedding in my restaurant I would say no. Why? because that would be a celebration directly connected to a lifestyle I don't agree with and I should not be forced to have an active participation in such event. Would that make me lose business? Probably, but I would still like to have the choice.

 

[bobhikes]

Not really, but I guess that's subject to interpretation. I simply would like to be able to refuse participating in things that go against my beliefs without being tagged as racist/homophobic which, by the way, I don't think I am.

Let me explain with a simple example. If I had a restaurant and gay people came over for a meal and a coffee I would serve them happily and would see them just like any other customer. Having a meal is something normal for everyone, humans need to eat and there's no connection between eating and sexual orientation. If the same gay people asked me to host their wedding in my restaurant I would say no. Why? because that would be a celebration directly connected to a lifestyle I don't agree with and I should not be forced to have an active participation in such event. Would that make me lose business? Probably, but I would still like to have the choice.

I would agree with this as long as you follow all of your religions rules and are not picking and choosing which you want to support. For example keep holy the sabath day. I would assume your restaurants would be closed on the sabath day.

 

[Sees]

Not really, but I guess that's subject to interpretation. I simply would like to be able to refuse participating in things that go against my beliefs without being tagged as racist/homophobic which, by the way, I don't think I am.

Let me explain with a simple example. If I had a restaurant and gay people came over for a meal and a coffee I would serve them happily and would see them just like any other customer. Having a meal is something normal for everyone, humans need to eat and there's no connection between eating and sexual orientation. If the same gay people asked me to host their wedding in my restaurant I would say no. Why? because that would be a celebration directly connected to a lifestyle I don't agree with and I should not be forced to have an active participation in such event. Would that make me lose business? Probably, but I would still like to have the choice.

The point is that it is discrimination, the reasons why it takes place doesn't change that....whether personal philosophy or religion.

This is really interpretation of proper application of religious principles. You are not committing any homosexual acts either way, which is the specific religious requirement invoked.