What are your thoughts on the freedom of religion bill? EDIT
What are everybody's thoughts on the freedom of religion bill's that are being passed all across America? There are two sides to this story. It is not as simple as a gay couple wanting to by a wedding cake and being turned out because of their orientation and the bakery wanting to hold true to their values.
This video clip makes a very good illustration on what is going on.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-muslim-b...
I feel different about it on different levels. On one level I am so sick and tired of everybody screaming about rights. It is not as if people are out stoning gays in the streets anymore. It is a lot more socially accepted then ever before. There were probably 200 bakeries in that town and they chose to press the ISSUE with this one bakery. Why? They could have easily gone to another store.
On another level, I feel my right to choose is being challenged. It is not enough that I accept your lifestyle and do not judge you for it, but now I must be forced to live my life differently so you feel accepted or that you have all the same rights as every other "Identity" in the country. How is that any different from someone wanting to have the right to walk into a store and receive service regardless of their race,gender or identity? Imagine the government saying that based on the 1st and 14th amendment you, as a Jewish Photographer, must by law not refuse the job of taking photos at a Nazi rally or a black baker having to make a cake for two clansmen who walked into their shop dressed in full KKK garb? In both cases neither the KKK or the Nazi party are considered separate Identities in the eyes of the constitution, yet that is what is being challenged as I see it. Both sides are wanting amendment rights. Even though the gay community have no amendment rights at this time which segues into my next point.
The gay community as I see it, is fighting for Identity the same as women and race to receive the same constitutional rights as everybody else. The belief that the bakery should not have been able to turn away a gay couple based on religious beliefs is only part of the argument. The bible says it is a sin to be gay (Not in any way religious but it moves to point!), the 1st amendment guarantees the right to practice free religion, why couldn't the gay couple go to a bakery where religion was not an issue? Now in order for this to take place the constitution must be challenged and freedom of religion is at stake which is to say that every citizens right to practice their religion is only true if they do not offend anyone! The other deeper and more sinister side of this is that in order for the gay community to be acknowledged as separate identities the supreme court would have to write another law or amend the 14th amendment. This puts making laws back into the supreme courts hands which is always dicey. At this time gay rights and marriage are not acknowledged at a federal level. Only at a state level, however, 70% of the country accepts same sex unions! So they are receiving benefits of marriage, I do not see anything wrong with a business being able to say no based on religious beliefs and gay couples being acknowledged as gay people having the same rights as everyone else. How is their right being challenged in any way when they had 200 other shops to go to. If every one of the stores had said no than I would see an issue.
If the supreme court gets involved it would be a huge case of Federal law challenging State law which of course you know is a whole other animal since states have the right to govern themselves.
- The number 200 is an arbitrary number and is used only to illustrate the point that there were many other choices.
** Freedom of religion in this case and the constitution is understood to mean without harming others. No sacrifices folks. That does not mean that religion does not offend others. Which is allowed!
I also want to make clear that we are discussing two different cases here. The cake case was in Oregon and the couple that refused service have lost their business and could be fined up to $200,000. In Indiana, it was a pizza parlor that refused the couples wedding. Obviously two very different states. Oregon is left wing and Indiana being the right.
What are your thoughts?
- Bookmark
- 0
- 0
As you see it what is at stake here? For both sides.
I am disgusted at the thought of two dudes getting it on but that said, it is none of my business or anyone else's. These bills are just mean spirited and archaic.
At least keep it behind closed doors, i dont need to see 2 twinks playing grab ass in the checkout line of walmart
Do you feel like like straight people should avoid PDA as well? Or is just your sensitivity you want to protect?
I see gay guys wearing shirts that have some LGBT slogan and announcing there gayness all over the place, i dont walk around wearing shirts that say i love pussy or that im horny for female ass, or announcing im heterosexual and here on the scene so get used to it, if i did that id be called out as a pervert, womanizer etc. But if i call out a homosexual for his flamboyant rude display id be called a bigot, or homophobic , and no i dont want to watch a strate couple engaging in PDA either. It's both equally rude and uncomfortable, but i see these MEN doing it on purpose in front of families, children Ect just to make people uncomfortable, ad getting off on it too, because they know if anyone speaks up they can instantly be targeted as being anti-(whatever)
How so? How are they mean spirited?
Giving people license to be dicks because of their religion which in most cases isn't even religion just personal hangups.
They are attempting to Ban people wearing american flag shirts or clothing in grade schools College campuses and public venues because it may offend the immigrant population
What if the government was saying that a Jewish holocaust survivor who was a photographer had to take photos of a Nazi rally party? Isn't that in effect what the other side of the argument is? That people should not have the right to say no?
What if had been a black baker who refused to make a cake for a KKK couple who wanted to get married?
There are plenty of other ways to just say no without saying why. You could just say my schedule won't permit it or I will be out of town that day, etc. There has never been a need to say "Nope, I don't believe in your lifestyle, color of skin, sexual orientation, etc.
Valid point. If in fact they stated what their reason was for saying no they opened the door. They do have the right to say that though. Also the couple have the right to go elsewhere. By saying they could have said no for other reasons is the same saying they do not have the right to say no for religious reasons.
The other side of the coin for me is why would anyone want to do business with someone that doesn't want to do business with you anyway? Would you want someone baking you a cake that despises you and your lifestyle? I know I wouldn't.
LOL yeah you could spit in the cake batter!!!
Exactly what I was getting at. I won't even send food back at a restaurant, I will chose to not eat at all first.
Nobody wants to give their money to someone who openly hates them. The problem here is the slippery slope of open discrimination. We don't allow businesses to openly discriminate on the base or race/religion/ethnicity, so why would we allow them to discriminate on the basis of anything else.
There's a picture of Pence signing the bill and each person around him is involved in some way limiting rights for LGBT people. That's why its mean spirited. The same group of people who proposed the bills were involved in proposing bills that would undo any municipal bills offering protection to LGBT people. Fortunately those bills didn't go anywhere. Plenty of states have an RFRA and the reason it's not controversial in those states is that it models the Feds RFRA and they add sexual orientation and identity to the list of protected classes (like religion/ethnicity/race)
Good argument. Thank you
Nazi's wouldn't want a Jewish photographer and KKK wouldn't want a black baker.