Religous Freedom being used as an argument to support discrimination

Posted by Maphesdus 12 years, 2 months ago to Legislation
168 comments | Share | Flag

New Arizona legislation could give business owners the right to discriminate against anyone they want, as long as they have a religious reason for doing so. If this passes, it would effectively destroy the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as all other Civil Rights and equal protection laws.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 5.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How does refusing to do business with them harm anyone?

    In particular, how does it harm someone of a different race, religion, nationality, sex, hair color, political affiliation, height, weight, intelligence... whatever?

    LGBT community... what race is this? nationality? sex? Please may I see pictures of their unique sex organs that they are neither male nor female?

    There's no reason to extend protections to them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Governments HAVE no rights. Only individuals have rights.

    The various governments within the United States have powers granted them by the people via the Constitution, but they have NO rights.

    And nowhere in the Constitution is gov't granted the right to regulate public business. Even the so-called "commerce clause" was written to make trade between States regular; that is, to prevent economic warfare between States.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Another thing I don't think is being fully considered is what would these agencies do if they happened to have a gay or transgender child who needed to be put up for adoption? What then? "

    Get the child counseling?

    Does this mean that local churches which are used as voting sites can no longer be used thus?

    The alleged separation of church and state is to protect the citizenry from the government, not from religion.

    If you disagree with the tenets of a given religion, why are you going to them for products or services? There's plenty of secular competition...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Another major thing that happened between the years you listed was the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.

    You are correct that a breakdown of family structure leads to violent crime, but what is causing black families to be broken down? If you stop and actually look at the facts, the answer is clear: Disproportionate arrest and imprisonment for drug use. Only 16% of black people actually use drugs, yet 65% of the people in prison are black, and they're in prison on charges of drug related crimes. If you want to know what's destroying black families, there's your answer.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    who gets to define "public good"? I mean... "harmful to the general public"?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Do you mean privately owned business as well?
    The gov has no right to 'master' over ANY part of an individual's life! Again I ask, why are you here Meph. You're obviously lost.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have no moral qualms about forcing people to act in opposition to their beliefs and traditions if those beliefs and traditions are harmful to the general public.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Government does not need to be a master over all parts of an individual's life, no. But government is well within its [legal power] to regulate public business.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    why did we not have a black family breakdown in the 20s during prohibition then?
    Black families in the 50s had the lowest rate out of wedlock births. By 1974, that rate exploded 10x. What major things happened during this period? The Civil Rights Act of 64 and the very next year, the war on poverty and welfare. I am not suggesting false markets do not contribute, but the breakdown in family structure is what leads to violent crime. Here is an interesting study on point:
    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by iketarver 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Don't waste your time with people that you have to go to ask them to work. That is fantasyland.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ johnrobert2 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You just answered one of my questions. No, you are not prepared to live at a tooth and claw level. You would probably be one of its first victims.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ johnrobert2 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So your answer is to provide legal sanction to forestall such action? Standards are the yardstick by which a business owner may judge his clientele and to whom he will give custom. To deny him the right to standards is to deny him the right to promote his business to suit his needs. Again, tyranny and despotism are the only recourse for those who would strip him of those rights.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ johnrobert2 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, the government is not 'forcing' them to close by any legalistic gymnastics but forcing them to act in opposition to their stated beliefs and traditions is. It will be interesting to watch what you do when the government decides to intrude into your private life and prescribe how you are to live and believe. Or are you such a paragon that the government would find no fault in you. If you are, I should not want to be in your presence as I would feel myself unworthy to associate with you.

    As for what then, as was previously suggested, let those niches of society deal with those themselves if they feel they are inadequately served by other means.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ johnrobert2 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are supposing the 'history books' retain the history as actually lived and not the propagandized revisionist rewrites used today to promulgate an agenda are the history books to be perused?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ johnrobert2 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And it is your perfect right to so act. However, grant to others the right to refuse to serve those with whom they have differences of conscience. Or do you enjoy using coercive legalisms to enforce YOUR idea of equity.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ johnrobert2 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am saying Jefferson had an understanding which stated that religious duty was between "Man and his God"(see para 2 of Danbury letter). Jefferson's reasoning was only concerned with the establishment of a religion sanctioned by the state to the detriment of other religions. He makes no mention of an overreaching government enforcing a policy of punishing conscience. Jefferson, who abhorred any government in any form except the most minimal, would be aghast at the scope and punitive nature of our government today. Indeed, he would be actively opposed to it.

    http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.h...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ johnrobert2 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Must government then be master to all parts of a person's life? For if you have reached such a point, then tyranny and despotism is your only recourse and you have failed in your object of a forestalling a 'big' government, for only such an organization can marshal resources enough to overshadow each person's life in its entirety. Such intrusion demands persons of such venality and moral rot that none would be safe in any part of their existence. Only becoming one such as they would ameliorate a portion of the onerousness of such a life, and those who watch would also be subject. Any person of conscience should be so repulsed and feel such repugnance at such conduct so as to be physically ill at contemplating such a course.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, but there are these things called "history books," which I've found to be very useful whenever I want to know about something that happened in the past.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Let me ask you a question: who is forcing the Catholic adoption agencies to close? Hint: it isn't the government...

    Oh, and no, religious convictions do not give religious organizations any right to discriminate in their public affairs. If they want to say gay and lesbian people can't get married in their chapels, or can't participate in their religious services, that's perfectly fine. But as soon as the church enters into the public realm and starts providing a product or service to the general public, then the church becomes bound by the same laws and regulations as any secular organization or business.

    Another thing I don't think is being fully considered is what would these agencies do if they happened to have a gay or transgender child who needed to be put up for adoption? What then?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Mimi 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Explain what you mean by that so I can tell you specifically how you got it all wrong.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Mimi 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I’m with you on most points. Let me play devil’s advocate anyway: How did you feel about Catholic Charities being forced to allow gay couples to adopt? I’m pro-civil rights too, but here’s an organization with countless accolades through the decades that has helped numerous families. Women went to CC and trusted them to find good catholic homes for the children that they most likely could not afford to raise themselves. Were these women wrong to want to seek out a specific future for their children? Was the church wrong to oblige them? How do we make choices for our self and rule out certain paths without being considered intolerant or racist? Is it fair that this is something the government thinks it has a right to intervene in? Why can’t well meaning gay supporters start their own adoption agency? Where is the tolerance working the other way?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo