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 2.
  • 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.
    There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination."

    That's just a hypocritical term coined by prejudiced bigots who think that they're being persecuted when really what's happening is that they're not being allowed to engage in persecution.

    Example:
    A Neo-Nazi owns a restaurant, and refuses to let Jews eat there. Then when the authorities force him to obey civil rights laws, the Neo-Nazi claims that he is being persecuted for his beliefs, and claims so-called "reverse discrimination." It's really quite pathetic.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This is patently 'untrue'.

    I'll let you figure out what "groups" have separate rules, and laws.
    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.
    Well actually, I think that at this point, the Civil Rights Act has the support of a majority of both elected representatives the government.

    And no, the people on the wrong side of history are those who support discrimination, not those who oppose it.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • Rocky_Road replied 12 years, 1 month ago
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Don't go brain dead on us...you know that the fear of being labeled as a "racist" has always prevented any real vocal opposition...just as the race card has burdened us with 8 years of the incompetence of a man-child that once taught Alinsky.

    You have no idea how most of us feel about reverse discrimination, and you might be surprised to learn just how small your 'camp' really is.
    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.
    A business owner should have no more right to deny service to a same-sex couple than s/he has to deny service to other minorities.

    Discriminating against African Americans was specifically outlawed by the Civil Rights Act, and that same attitude against discrimination should be extended to the LGBT community as well.

    To discriminate against a person in business and other public accommodations is a violation of that person's right, and as such cannot be permitted.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "...it is theoretically possible that in a republic, a bill may be passed into law if a majority of the representatives support it, even if a majority of the people do not."

    Did you ever stop to consider that the Civil Rights Act just might fit this statement?

    And that you might be on the wrong side of history?
    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.
    All groups which provide goods and services to the general public must operate under the same laws and regulations. To say that some laws only apply to certain groups would be unjust, and would create an aristocracy of the group which was exempt from the laws.
    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.
    That's certainly an interesting video, and very informative, though most of what it discussed was stuff I already knew. Also, whoever created that video is wrong to say that the current political spectrum of communists on the left and fascists on the right should be replaced with totalitarianism on the left and anarchy on the right.

    The communism/fascism dichotomy and the totalitarianism/anarchy dichotomy are both important to keep in mind, and neither dichotomy should replace the other. Rather, the common understanding of left and right should remain intact, and totalitarianism/anarchy should represent a new axis: up and down, and not replace the existing left/right axis.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "When one's religious beliefs constitute discrimination against a minority, it is not wrong to circumvent those beliefs in the public sphere."

    All of this has stemmed from the legal (and, targeted) attacks against a Christian based bakery, and a Christian based photo shop, that chose not to accept the contract for services from lesbian couples.

    The heart of these incidents is that the business owners hold religious values against homosexuality (that you label as discrimination), but they were more than willing to 'live, and let live', and be left alone. They did not seek confrontation, but just wanted to conduct their private businesses as they saw fit, and to be free to embrace their belief system.

    The homosexuals weren't that tolerant, however, and demanded that their 'rights' should supersede the business owners. They would not embrace the 'live, and let live' approach, and simply place their business elsewhere. That would have been a 'problem solved' solution....

    The homosexuals exploited their perceived 'victim' status, and demanded that the nation agree that their 'right' to hold a minority life style more worthy than anyone else's right to their value system. There is no public sphere benefit achieved from stumping for one person's rights, to be of more value than another person's rights.
    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.
    In a republic, the passage of a law only requires the approval of the majority of the elected representatives. It does not require the approval of a majority of the general public. Only in a pure democracy do the people vote on laws directly. In a republic, the people vote for representatives, and then the representatives vote on the laws. As a result, it is theoretically possible that in a republic, a bill may be passed into law if a majority of the representatives support it, even if a majority of the people do not.

    And no, I do not believe that the Civil Rights Act violates the First Amendment.
    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.
    If you think the Civil Rights Act is wrong, go ahead and try to have it repealed. But don't be surprised when the only people backing you are Neo-Nazis and the KKK...
    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.
    Discrimination in business and public accommodations is explicitly outlawed. Therefore it is not a protected right.
    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.
    Discrimination in public sectors infringes upon another person's rights. Therefore, such discrimination is not a protected right.

    You seem to be totally incapable of distinguishing between private and public affairs, which is actually rather important in regards to the law. You're perfectly entitled to discriminate in your own private life, such as in choosing who to marry and what not, but you are not permitted to discriminate in business or other public accommodations.
    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.
    If by "counseling" you're suggesting reparative therapy or conversion therapy, that would constitute child abuse, and should be forbidden as its been proven to be totally ineffective and harmful.
    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.
    It is entirely possible for non-government organizations to engage in unjust and tyrannical practices and control the public realm through the use of force. The mafia is one example of a non-government organization using force to control the public. Churches can sometimes behave like the mafia as well, and it is necessary to curtail such behavior.
    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.
    When one's religious beliefs constitute discrimination against a minority, it is not wrong to circumvent those beliefs in the public sphere.
    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.
    By public business, I meant any business which provides a service to the public, not a business owned by the public.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "...problems arise when people think their religious beliefs put them above the law and make them exempt from following the laws."

    What happens when the "law" wrongly circumvents one's religious beliefs, where the Constitution clearly trumps the Civil Rights Act?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo