- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: AZ Senate Passes 'Right to Discriminate' Bill
Posted on 2/25/14 at 9:20 am to asurob1
Posted on 2/25/14 at 9:20 am to asurob1
I have zero problems with codifying a freedom of association protection based upon religious expression.
A Jewish or Muslim restaurant should not be forced to serve pork. A baptist church should not be forced to hire gay people to work in the office. A Christian baker should not be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding.
People in private business, with their own money on the line, should be free to refuse service/accomodation based upon a deeply held spiritual belief. The government cannot do so. Those doing business with the government will have to make a tough choice.
But, as far as this being a "right" to discriminate - I'm not seeing it - seems like a protection of the right of free association to me.
Having said that - other than the religious organization wanting to exclude GLBT people from their employment, I think it is silly to exercise this right in the marketplace. Their money is green and a savvy business person should always be looking for ways to expand his or her business.
But just because I think it is silly does not mean I also agree with a metaphorical breaking down of "Prince of Peace Bakery" (for example), sending in a SWAT team with guns drawn (again, metaphorically) at the bakers and shouting - 'You bake Adam and Steve a wedding cake right this instant!'"
Not in America.
A Jewish or Muslim restaurant should not be forced to serve pork. A baptist church should not be forced to hire gay people to work in the office. A Christian baker should not be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding.
People in private business, with their own money on the line, should be free to refuse service/accomodation based upon a deeply held spiritual belief. The government cannot do so. Those doing business with the government will have to make a tough choice.
But, as far as this being a "right" to discriminate - I'm not seeing it - seems like a protection of the right of free association to me.
Having said that - other than the religious organization wanting to exclude GLBT people from their employment, I think it is silly to exercise this right in the marketplace. Their money is green and a savvy business person should always be looking for ways to expand his or her business.
But just because I think it is silly does not mean I also agree with a metaphorical breaking down of "Prince of Peace Bakery" (for example), sending in a SWAT team with guns drawn (again, metaphorically) at the bakers and shouting - 'You bake Adam and Steve a wedding cake right this instant!'"
Not in America.
This post was edited on 2/25/14 at 9:22 am
0
Posted on 2/25/14 at 9:23 am to todospm
quote:
But America has never been equal to blacks and whites. At no point in our nation's history have blacks ever approached anything close to the quality of life standards of any other group except Native Americans. That's a few centuries of dying earlier, being incarcerated more often, owning less property, and being less educated. Any indicator you can think of will show that throughout the duration of our nation's history, blacks have been our untouchable caste. So where's the double standard, really?
Define the parameters of *equal*, T, if you think there are any. I used the word 'equal', as I would use the word 'heaven'...as an Ideal. I full well realize that a COERCED form of equality would be as pernicious as it was seemingly...desirable.
I am not, nor will I ever be (in this life) equal to Drew Brees in my ability to do what he does and prosper according to his unique talents. But I would never support Law mandate the NFL standards to be lowered to meet my own deficiency and raise me to equality, because it is ultimately the PUBLIC that values/supports Drew. They would reject me, rightfully so, for being forced (by Government) to pay for a inferior product. Same with Affirmative Action; and any Black or White (nws ignorance of misguided sentiments) that supports such, deserves no respect.
It takes time for things to change. Blacks - without doubt - were conquered and used/abused, as was the historical norm back then. They weren't guiltless, they did it to themselves (slavery, rape, pillage, cannibalism, etc.), so it is no leap that their conquerors would see the group as lesser beings and deserving of no respect. Same with the Native Americans. The Jews. Countless other Ethnicities/Cultures.
The big difference was the introduction of the very Concept of equality and individual self-worth and Natural/God-given Rights into the whole mix. Written, Codified into Law...and a Nation formed ON THOSE PRINCIPLES. A sitting duck for the 'hypocrisy' card. And such was based on Religion, and the mandate to "love thy brother as thy self", and "the least of my brethren" (Biblical) if you (or your Country) wants the same tolerance and forgiveness from the Good Lord.
The bottom line is that God (assuming there is one, for argument's sake) don't FORCE individuals to act in a moral way. He sets the buffet of choice, defines the consequences, and lets individuals choose their preferred values. And bear the consequences of those choices without laying their burdens on the backs of them who chose otherwise. Heaven ain't Socialist. Individual merit applies. Justice.
It is and should be up to individuals to choose the common good, and given the media of today and the fact that while many folk may be misguided, their intent is good and true...they will stand up and reject discrimination in scenarios that are TRULY discriminatory...and defend scenarios that are discriminatory for a VALID reason.
Neither the folk on this Earth, or them in Heaven...will be *equal*, because where there is an imposed equality...there will be injustice to individuals who EARN AND DESERVE more than the 'fair share'/'social justice' version of today's Progressive
Authoritarian Ideology promotes as the cure all for our trouble. If an Individual is free...that's about as equal as they'll ever be. When it comes to prosperity...they'd best use that freedom to get to work.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 9:27 am to asurob1
In Islam, depiction of images of Muhammad is considered sacrilege.
Should a muslim baker be forced to make a cake depicting an image of the Prophet Muhammad?
Should a muslim baker be forced to make a cake depicting an image of the Prophet Muhammad?
Posted on 2/25/14 at 9:29 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Should a muslim baker be forced to make a cake depicting an image of the Prophet Muhammad?
And make the image of Muhammad explicitly gay?
(See how far this can extend?)
Posted on 2/25/14 at 9:32 am to asurob1
I'm not going to debate the specific merits of a bill I haven't read, but in general, we always miss the point on stuff like this.
On the first page, the OP posted an image of black girls being harassed for sitting at a lunch counter in the 60s.
That's objectively a bad thing, right? Can we all agree on that?
Yes, every reasonable person can agree that it's a bad thing for someone to be harassed, excluded, etc for things that are out of their control.
But what about forcing someone to do something they don't want to do? Is that not also a bad thing? Why should someone have to serve ANYONE they don't want to serve, for any reason?
So let's imagine you are a gay man that owns a stationery store in Scottsdale. Which would be worse:
a. Not being able to eat at a certain restaurant because its owner and patrons would rather not serve and eat with people that make them uncomfortable
b. Being forced to sell posters and markers to the Westboro Baptist people so that they could make signs that say you are going to hell for being gay
I submit that it would be better to have your dining choices restricted while retaining your freedom to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
The government's role should just be to create a level playing field.
Instead we choose to restrict people's freedom in a naive and ultimately inhuman attempt to legislate tolerance.
On the first page, the OP posted an image of black girls being harassed for sitting at a lunch counter in the 60s.
That's objectively a bad thing, right? Can we all agree on that?
Yes, every reasonable person can agree that it's a bad thing for someone to be harassed, excluded, etc for things that are out of their control.
But what about forcing someone to do something they don't want to do? Is that not also a bad thing? Why should someone have to serve ANYONE they don't want to serve, for any reason?
So let's imagine you are a gay man that owns a stationery store in Scottsdale. Which would be worse:
a. Not being able to eat at a certain restaurant because its owner and patrons would rather not serve and eat with people that make them uncomfortable
b. Being forced to sell posters and markers to the Westboro Baptist people so that they could make signs that say you are going to hell for being gay
I submit that it would be better to have your dining choices restricted while retaining your freedom to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
The government's role should just be to create a level playing field.
Instead we choose to restrict people's freedom in a naive and ultimately inhuman attempt to legislate tolerance.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 9:35 am to Ace Midnight
quote:asurob thinks he's quite satisfied with the mandate. He doesn't envision it impacting him. He doesn't think deeply enough to envision predictably negative consequences of ceding freedoms.
And make the image of Muhammad explicitly gay?
(See how far this can extend?)
Posted on 2/25/14 at 9:38 am to GumboPot
quote:
In the utopian america that is so desired by the authoritarian statist, all your art work from thenceforth will be gay art. You will only paint gay art. No more Louisiana landscapes unless it shows two gays frolicking in the cattails. No more French Quarter scenes unless your oil painting reflect men in short shorts at decadence. The state has spoken. Deal with it.
That's funny, and I'll laugh...but just last night I watched a Doc on some Russian painter, back when, whose work offended the State. Prison, *re-education*...and back to the easel painting the clean version of reality. He slipped in the truth though. GP, I won't have to worry about that day...because my Irish genes and MOUTH will likely exempt me from the re-education camp, and put me straight in the mass grave. Exactly where I would prefer...alongside my brethren.
That said, the Gays (family and associates) that I've met in my life...I love. Fine folk...some of the most sane, really. Burdened...nonetheless. The 'gay' façade...is a façade.
It's the Authoritarian activist who I hold a healthy fear of, be they Gay or Marxist. Or Religious.
Freedom rocks. But not without Truth.
Wish I was watching the Parades...and the crowd. Life. What a scene!
Posted on 2/25/14 at 9:40 am to uway
Poliboard wisdom abounds!
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:13 am to uway
quote:
But what about forcing someone to do something they don't want to do? Is that not also a bad thing? Why should someone have to serve ANYONE they don't want to serve, for any reason?
Your rights are supposed to end where mine begin.
That's not good enough for some people anymore.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:22 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
asurob thinks he's quite satisfied with the mandate. He doesn't envision it impacting him. He doesn't think deeply enough to envision predictably negative consequences of ceding freedoms.
Like I've said before, he is way too biased with his well demonstrated hatred of religion.
I hate bible thumpers but I abide by the principle of religious freedom when it does not infringe on others without consent and being refused service or employment is clearly not infringement on others.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:29 am to Sentrius
I think the bill is a fantastic idea. How else can I know I am avoiding doing business with bigots?
Besides, the very first time a case on this goes to court the entire bill gets quashed due to the Civil Rights Act, passed under the umbrella of the Commerce Clause.
Besides, the very first time a case on this goes to court the entire bill gets quashed due to the Civil Rights Act, passed under the umbrella of the Commerce Clause.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:34 am to Bard
quote:
I think the bill is a fantastic idea. How else can I know I am avoiding doing business with bigots?
Assume that I'm a Catholic baker. A Catholic couple comes and asks for a wedding cake, but one of them is thrice-divorced. As a Catholic, I believe that that marriage is wrong and does not actually exist, so I refuse to bake their cake. Am I a bigot?
Also, is anyone going to answer my earlier question?
quote:
Question: Over the past few years, libs have screamed up and down that they will not force churches to perform homosexual "marriages". How is the response to bills like this anything but preparation for forcing churches to perform homosexual "marriages"?
This post was edited on 2/25/14 at 10:36 am
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:41 am to TN Bhoy
There's a very simple, market-based solution to all of this.
Reserve the right to set prices for your goods and services on a case-by-case basis. If Adam and Steve come into my bakery wanting a wedding cake, fine. That'll be 10 grand, in advance. If Westboro Baptist comes in wanting a cake that says "Death to figs", cool. 10 grand, up front please. I'm not obliged to enumerate my expenses or anticipated profit margin to you. And you're not obliged to do business with me when there are other more affordable businesses out there that you are free to patronize.
Reserve the right to set prices for your goods and services on a case-by-case basis. If Adam and Steve come into my bakery wanting a wedding cake, fine. That'll be 10 grand, in advance. If Westboro Baptist comes in wanting a cake that says "Death to figs", cool. 10 grand, up front please. I'm not obliged to enumerate my expenses or anticipated profit margin to you. And you're not obliged to do business with me when there are other more affordable businesses out there that you are free to patronize.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:50 am to TN Bhoy
quote:
Am I a bigot?
How can I tell if you're a bigot unless I know your race and political party affiliation?
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:53 am to Sentrius
quote:
More gov't telling private property owners what to do with their property they own. Yay.
Rob, this is hypocrisy, period
You couldn't be more wrong.
This is an attempt to return to the glory days of the 50s where we eagerly and happily segregated our society based on a bunch of shite that "shouldn't" matter anymore....only this time we are hiding behind the guise of "religious freedom".
Looks like Grandma Jan is going to veto it. It appears that the moronic republican party in Arizona worships the all-mighty dollar far more then the one true god.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:53 am to son of arlo
quote:
How can I tell if you're a bigot unless I know your race and political party affiliation?
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:54 am to asurob1
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:54 am to gthog61
quote:
That's all you've got?
Were you looking for my digits?
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:56 am to TN Bhoy
quote:
Question: Over the past few years, libs have screamed up and down that they will not force churches to perform homosexual "marriages". How is the response to bills like this anything but preparation for forcing churches to perform homosexual "marriages"?
I didn't notice anywhere in the legislation where it said " to prevent churches from having to marry those evil gays."
It's a boggy-man the anti-gay crowd uses to rile up it's base.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:57 am to asurob1
quote:
This is an attempt to return to the glory days of the 50s where we eagerly and happily segregated our society based on a bunch of shite that "shouldn't" matter anymore....only this time we are hiding behind the guise of "religious freedom".
Drama queen.
Page 11 of 36
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News