Religious Freedom!

I keep reading articles about states (in the US) passing laws to allow discrimination against gay people.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/13/us/kansas-bill-same-sex-services/

House Bill 2453 explicitly protects religious individuals, groups and businesses that refuse services to same-sex couples, particularly those looking to tie the knot.

It passed the state's Republican-dominated House on Wednesday with a vote of 72-49, and has gone to the Senate for a vote.

Such a law may seem unnecessary in a state where same-sex marriage is banned, but some Kansas lawmakers think different.

They want to prevent religious individuals and organizations from getting sued, or otherwise punished, for not providing goods or services to gay couples -- or for not recognizing their marriages or committed relationship as valid.

This includes employees of the state.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/12/idaho-bill-would-allow-doctors-or-cops-to-refuse-service-to-lgbt-people-on-religious-grounds/

An Idaho Republican can’t think of anyone in his state who has been forced to render aid to a gay or lesbian person against their will, and he’d like to keep it that way.

Rep. Lynn Luker outlined a proposal Tuesday backed by his conservative Christian allies to shield religious people from the threat of losing their professional licenses for refusing service or employment to anyone they conclude violates their religious beliefs.

“This is pre-emptive,” said Luker, a Boise Republican. “The issue is coming, whether it’s 10 years, or 15 years, or two years.”

So the Kansas thing sucks... but Idaho, wtf are they thinking? How is it Christian to deny help to someone in need? Is that what Jesus would do?

Well offering wedding services to gay couples might be against your religious belief and if so, that should be okay. I know most places have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason and that should be ok if your a private business. It's not a life or death situation if a flower shop or bakery refuses to cater to gay people just go somewhere else if you don't get the result you desire, after all that is what capitalism is all about anyways. 

No, if you have a business that is open to the public it is illegal to discriminate. You don't have a right to refuse service to someone because they are black, or atheist, or white, etc.  Just because a business has a sign that says they reserve the right to refuse service, doesn't mean they can't be sued for it. Also, what religious belief is it that doesn't allow you to bake a cake for someone? Do they also refuse to bake cakes for people of other religions? Do they refuse to bake cakes for people who wear clothes made from more than one fiber?

Jesus, Oregon too http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/04/oregon_anti_gay_referendum_the_initiative_is_homophobic_segregation.html

No, if you have a business that is open to the public it is illegal to discriminate. You don't have a right to refuse service to someone because they are black, or atheist, or white, etc.  Just because a business has a sign that says they reserve the right to refuse service, doesn't mean they can't be sued for it. Also, what religious belief is it that doesn't allow you to bake a cake for someone? Do they also refuse to bake cakes for people of other religions? Do they refuse to bake cakes for people who wear clothes made from more than one fiber?

Jesus, Oregon too http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/04/oregon_anti_gay_referendum_the_initiative_is_homophobic_segregation.html

Well in the instance for certain clubs for example some of them have strict dress codes and some of them also only allow members of a certain gender but I think that's ok if they want to discriminate based on whatever basis they want to as long as it's not an essential service like buying gas at the gas station, working on your car or buying food at the supermarket who really cares?

Those are private clubs that require membership. They are not open to the public, that is why they can discriminate. The same goes for private schools.

A dress code is not discrimination (in the legal sense).

In an emergency situation, how would they know if someone is gay?

Those are private clubs that require membership. They are not open to the public, that is why they can discriminate. The same goes for private schools.

A dress code is not discrimination (in the legal sense).

Organized Religions are often a private club that requires membership, or could be viewed that way. They are not open to all the public (as can be evidenced by their intent in these measures.)

Right, but a bakery isn't an organized religion. There are no laws in the US (that I'm aware of) that would require a church to provide any services for gay people. They are free to be as bigoted as they like.

A lot of churches are very accepting of gay people as well, though their members may not be. They want to accept the gays so they can rid them of their homosexuality sin.

In an emergency situation, how would they know if someone is gay?

I wondered the same thing.

Excuse me sir, I know you're bleeding to death, but are you a homosexual?

Right, but a bakery isn't an organized religion. There are no laws in the US (that I'm aware of) that would require a church to provide any services for gay people. They are free to be as bigoted as they like.

I misread! Thanks.

I find it amazing that a lawmaker would seriously want (if I read the article right) to deny emergency service to anyone, for any reason. I mean, that's f----d up. You know, I'm as traditionally religious as the next guy, & moreso than many, & I have some moral issues w/ homosexuality, but this, this is just wrong. Denying emergency services to anyone is just obscene.

I think all these bills have been dropped in the last couple days.

Speaking of religious freedom.  http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/faith-healing-parents-get-prison-sons-death-n33921

Too bad they can't lock up their pastor too.

The only time religion truly irks me is when faith is used to determine a person's physical well-being.

The only time religion truly irks me is when faith is used to determine a person's physical well-being.

To be honest though if survival of the fittest is best for society then why make special provisions to try and to keep weak and defective people to live (and possibly procreate)? I mean isn't that within our religious right?

Well, & just last week, there was a snake-handling pastor in Kentucky that was bitten, went home instead of to the doctor, & was found dead the next day. I've always thought Christian beliefs a bit odd to begin w/, but that one just takes the taco for weird.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on February 20, 2014, 10:17:44 AM

The only time religion truly irks me is when faith is used to determine a person's physical well-being.

To be honest though if survival of the fittest is best for society then why make special provisions to try and to keep weak and defective people to live (and possibly procreate)? I mean isn't that within our religious right?

What does survival of the fittest  have to do with religious nuts allowing their children to die from pneumonia? And no, it isn't within your religious rights to allow children to die from treatable illnesses. Are you also against vaccinations?

It is within your religious rights to allow yourself to die. A child should be given the opportunity to grow up and make those decisions for himself.

Quote from: Sculelos on February 20, 2014, 11:51:59 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on February 20, 2014, 10:17:44 AM

The only time religion truly irks me is when faith is used to determine a person's physical well-being.

To be honest though if survival of the fittest is best for society then why make special provisions to try and to keep weak and defective people to live (and possibly procreate)? I mean isn't that within our religious right?

What does survival of the fittest  have to do with religious nuts allowing their children to die from pneumonia? And no, it isn't within your religious rights to allow children to die from treatable illnesses. Are you also against vaccinations?

It is within your religious rights to allow yourself to die. A child should be given the opportunity to grow up and make those decisions for himself.

Not receiving medical treatment isn't the same as murder though. If you don't treat an asthmatic properly and they die it's not really the same as deliberate murder. We can be so critical of what people do that people will be afraid to do anything out of fear of red tape. 

There is such a thing as criminal negligence causing death. If someone lets a dependent due from something that was eminently treatable a court might find them grossly negligent which could come with a manslaughter conviction.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on February 20, 2014, 02:39:06 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on February 20, 2014, 11:51:59 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on February 20, 2014, 10:17:44 AM

The only time religion truly irks me is when faith is used to determine a person's physical well-being.

To be honest though if survival of the fittest is best for society then why make special provisions to try and to keep weak and defective people to live (and possibly procreate)? I mean isn't that within our religious right?

What does survival of the fittest  have to do with religious nuts allowing their children to die from pneumonia? And no, it isn't within your religious rights to allow children to die from treatable illnesses. Are you also against vaccinations?

It is within your religious rights to allow yourself to die. A child should be given the opportunity to grow up and make those decisions for himself.

Not receiving medical treatment isn't the same as murder though. If you don't treat an asthmatic properly and they die it's not really the same as deliberate murder. We can be so critical of what people do that people will be afraid to do anything out of fear of red tape.

Purposely withholding medical treatment from someone who isn't old enough (or mentally able) to make those decisions for him/herself is a crime.  People should be afraid of the "red tape" when they abuse their children. Not seeking medical attention for your dying child is abuse. It's so weird that you think fearing red tape is worse than killing a kid.

http://bhcourier.com/washingtons-top-rated-lobbyist-engineering-bill-to-block-gays-from-joining-nfl/2014/02/24

Jack Burkman, CEO of Burkman LLC, who heads what is DC’s top-rated lobbying firm, said today that he is working on legislation that would ban gays from joining the National Football League.

Burkman said he has amassed the political support for such a bill.

 ”We are losing our decency as a nation,” Burkman said. ”Imagine your son being forced to shower with a gay man.  That’s a horrifying prospect for every mom in the country. What in the world has this nation come to?”

 The controversy over openly gay NFL players now spreads to Capitol Hill as lawmakers return from a seven-day vacation. 

Burkman says the legislation that would ban gay players from joining the NFL was triggered by college football star Michael Sam announcing he was gay. 

 If drafted by an NFL team, Sam would become the first openly gay professional football player.

“If the NFL has no morals and no values, then Congress must find values for it,” said Burkman.

How's he supposed to exercise his God given right to watch football if they let the gays in?

There should be no separation from gays and none gays in the NFL. Just make it a rule to have no sexual contact in the locker rooms and have rules in place to terminate any player who violates the rules. Besides there is nothing inherently wrong with nudity.

Nudity is immoral when not in congress with an opposite sex spouse.  But seriously, I doubt this will go very far and could be detrimental to this guy's business.

http://swampland.time.com/2014/02/26/lobbyist-trying-to-ban-gays-from-the-nfl-loses-client/

One client already lost by him because of this bill.

Good for DC Solar... but jeesh, that Burkman guy sure thinks about showering with gay guys a lot.

Did you read to the end of the article? lol

Meanwhile, Burkman’s biggest critic is his openly gay brother, Seattle anesthesiologist Dr. James Burkman, who tweeted Tuesday at his brother: “Having your head up your ass seems quite gay to me. No?”

Although on a religious level I'm inclined to agree w/ Duck, the USA has no State sanctioned morality, be it Jewish, Christian, or other. Therefore, I am forced to ask him what motivates him to state that nudity is immoral except in congress w/ one's opposite sex spouse. That may be true for him & his wife. It is true for me & my fiancee. But who is he to impose his morality on what other adult persons do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Or am I misunderstanding the general intention of his post?

Although on a religious level I'm inclined to agree w/ Duck, the USA has no State sanctioned morality, be it Jewish, Christian, or other. Therefore, I am forced to ask him what motivates him to state that nudity is immoral except in congress w/ one's opposite sex spouse. That may be true for him & his wife. It is true for me & my fiancee. But who is he to impose his morality on what other adult persons do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Or am I misunderstanding the general intention of his post?

Lusting after people whom you shouldn't be with is considered immoral but the act of simply being naked alone or with others in a non-sexual way is not really immoral. However we shouldn't needlessly be tempted or tempt other people either. However either way sexual considering orientation should be a non-issue for NFL players as it's just a professional sport and as far as I know NFL doesn't really have any religious orientation or restrictions so banning someone for not being straight would be like banning them for being a christian or any other non-sport related reason.

Again I ask, who decides if lust is immoral? It is for you. It is for me. But do we have the legal or ethical right to tell someone else it's immoral for them? Now, if my fiancee marries me, we can assume her morals are akin to mine. If she lusts for another man, that is a violation of the marriage vow between us. But I or we telling other adult persons it is immoral to lust is out of bounds. It implies that my morality should or in fact does hold sway over other free persons, when in fact, in the USA, neither is the case.