freedom of religion
 

now, arizona is in the process of potentially passing a law legalizing discrimination in the name of religious freedom.
idaho had similar legislation, as did kansas (who thankfully backtracked and removed the bill from consideration, for now).

http://news.msn.com/us/pressure-moun...pposed-by-gays


now, i think that the freedom of religion in our constititution means that we can worship (or not) in whatever religious house we so choose, and that we are free from the govt deciding to have a state religion, or in supporting one religion over others, thus avoiding all the troubles that would come from that occurring.
however, i don't believe that the freedom of religion can actually be construed as granting rights that people are trying to glean from the first amendment. the above arizona bill is one example of an overreach, in my opinion. how does someone's freedom of religion become a business issue, a service issue? how does having freedom to worship allow someone to deny a service? how far could this go?
also, not long ago a couple was charged due to a child of theirs dying. they'd prayed he would heal, but didn't take him for medical treatment-again, using freedom of religion as an excuse to neglect a child. that's bad enough, but it becomes even worse when you find this is their SECOND child to die for lack of care.
we have got to stop giving carte blanche to people in the name of religion.

Agreed Brewer will probably veto, but how did that get passed in the first place?

good question. i guess the same reason it was moving thru in kansas...and idaho.
i like what george takei had to say on the subject.

The lord loves a working man. Also loves hossplayers

Love this quote:

”Why discriminate against anybody?” he said. “I’m just trying to make some food.”

http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/02/23/...anti-gay-bill/

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Vetoes Anti-Gay Bill:tro:

No schit:zz:



http://www.nbcnews.com/#/storyline/a...ay-bill-n39666

In many countries gays fight religious zealots for the right to live.

Here they fight for cake and ultimately have their rights affirmed and protected by a Republican Governor.

The U.S.A. needs to take a bow, again!

Oh fuking give me a break

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...-bill/5823133/
Q: Who drafted/sponsored the bill?

A: SB 1062's prime sponsor is Republican state Sen. Steve Yarbrough. Republican Sens. Bob Worsley and Nancy Barto are co-sponsors.

It passed the Senate on a party-line vote, 17-13, with Republicans in support. Since then, three GOP senators, including Worsley, have said they regret their votes and have asked Brewer to veto the bill.

The bill passed the House, 33-27, with mostly GOP support. Three Republicans joined with all 24 Democrats to vote against it.

to jms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmHeP9Sve48

and please...don't quote him. thanks.

Yeah,. it may be introduced, but in most states Dave won't get to the Governor...that's the difference here. Lots of racist or just plain idiotic bills get floated or introduced, but they don't get to within a signature of becoming Law.

Don't you wonder if the Super Bowl coming and veiled threats to move it was the real reason she vetoed it?

You're correct...I was going to add at the end of my post..well..thank goodness the NFL put the SB there..

She is a Pro-Business Governor who based her decision on what's best for business..I don't think equal rights for gays were part of how she processed this. I may be wrong, but doubt it...

it's too bad that arizona has to wait to make changes, admit errors, until it gets a bunch of negative attention from the rest of the country.
it took threats of boycotts, loss of superbowls, etc, to pass the MLK holiday.
embarrassing really for the state.
i'd imagine if she'd not been out of state for those days while attention built that she would have signed it into law. timing is everything.

State by State:

My money is on Mississippi

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1

Classic scenes..:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlDXQdgx_QU


Btw, catch last nites Colbert...some funny stuff..

:tro:

that simply isn't true. and i'd direct your attention to mississippi for another example. they managed to get the bill thru both houses, with both parties voting for it, with no noise made. and now, the pols are all realizing what they've done, and are trying to crawfish on their votes in MS. it was begun with the best of intentions, i'm sure, to protect someone's religious rights. but it all went south, because the pols were not paying attention to the larger picture, that they were essentially legalizing discrimination.
a perfect example of what paves the road to hell. the pols didn't think it thru. and now they're all trying to save face.
like george takei said, they can't decide who sits at the lunch counter. that decision has been made, years ago.

it's really too bad that it didn't pass, because i'd have LOVEDLOVEDLOVED to see a christian, and even better, one of the politicians, walk into a muslim-owned joint and get denied service. oho, that would have been just grand.
'no, it's not to protect you! just us good, god fearing christians.' that would have been hilarious.

and dave:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2...riminates.html

'Arizona allows discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment, public accommodations, housing, hospital visitation, and education.'


they have a ways to go, as do other states.

[quote=arizonadave;967369]i just don't get the thought processes of the people who are writing, supporting and voting for these really bad ideas.

If you're an American/Christian and refuse to participate in gay weddings due to religious objections in AZ. You can be sued.

Foreign muslim wanting come to America to preach the death penalty for being gay? Welcome to America. :wf

http://nypost.com/2014/03/02/state-d...ader-into-u-s/

but since there's no anti-discrimination law regarding gays, what would they be 'protecting' them from?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2...an_racism.html


as i've said before, here and elsewhere, saying 'religion' isn't enough-is it? to twist the teachings of jesus to justify hatred, vitriol, discrimination-that gives you a pass?

insert 'race' instead of 'homosexual', and tell me again how this is a-ok.

:tro:

Saw this tweeted by @JohnFugelsang , which couldn't sum it up more succinctly:

JESUS - was a radical, nonviolent, revolutionary who hung around with Lepers, Hookers, and Crooks -
He wasn't:
American and never spoke English.
He was:
Anti-Wealth, Anti-Death Penalty, and Anti-Public Prayer (M.6-5) and

NEVER mentioned Abortion or Birth Control
NEVER called the poor "lazy"
NEVER justified torture
NEVER fought for tax cuts for the Wealthiest Nazarenes,
NEVER asked a Leper for a Co-pay

He was a Long-Haired, Brown-Skinned, Homeless, Community-Organizing, Anti-Slut-Shaming, Middle Eastern Jew.

According to the source(s) cited above: Jesus also was born to a virgin, turned water into wine w/o a still, healed at least five from demon possession, raised a widow's dead son, Jairus' daughter and brought Lazarus back to life, walked on water AND was the son of God. ;)

FTFY. You used the wrong Emoticon.

The refusal of service to the lesbian couple is wrong and should not be legal/tolerated but comparing race and homosexuality is disingenuous as homosexuals have the ability to be perceived as straight or non-sexual. African Americans don't have the ability to be white or non-African American.

And refusing to bake a cake is not necessarily indicative of 'hate' IMO

It was close between :rolleyes: and :zz:

gays have "the ability to be perceived as straight" in the same way you have "the ability to be perceived as gay".

all they have to do is stop acting so queer and pushing their lifestyle in our faces, right?

your comment tries very hard to avoid saying its a personal choice but it's pretty hard to see how that isn't what you're actually saying. it's less offensive to refuse services because it's just the way someone is behaving as opposed to who they actually are.

Lot of presumptions there God.

Taking off a rainbow flag is much easier than washing the black off.

Bottom line, in America is it's 'easier' living life gay than living life black.

Whether it be jobs, housing or a meal at a restaurant and that was my point.

BTW I didn't bring up the comparison of discrimination between race and homosexuality.

yeah..

whatever happened to

do unto others as you'd have done unto you
judge not lest ye be judged
whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers....

??

jesus wouldn't be with the people supporting and pushing this legislation. he'd be with the 'sinners'

taking off the rainbow flag wouldn't make anyone less gay.

i'm a little embarrassed to be one of two old straight white dudes debating whether it's worse to be gay or black in america. i didn't intend to be the rainbow flag carrier against the slavery team.

i just commented because i thought you worked awfully hard in your original post to not say outright that people choose to be gay.

OK then let me go on record that being gay is not a choice.

And the waiter that refused the lesbian couple is a douche bag.

The whole thing was stupid. Everybody has got to eat, everybody should be able to buy what they can afford, patronize all sorts of businesses, etc. Who gives a damn if they are gay or straight as long as their money is Federal Reserve green.

The douche bag waiter

everyone is a human, and due civil treatment. here we are on a little bit of dirt in the middle of a massive universe, all alone, and all we have is each other.
why some people have to find ways to feel superior is beyond me. if people can't be humane and civil, they shouldn't be in any business working with the public.

i'm sure these people who are trying to legally discriminate wouldn't like it so much if it was them being discriminated against. they need to learn and practice empathy.

no, they didn't. the suits occurred in states where discrimination is banned. the three broke the law, which got them in trouble-as it should have.

so, these other places are going apesh!t, because 3 whole cases are their idea of attacks on religion in general. no, it's law-breaking by three people who thought they had a legit reason to break the law.

'Squeaky' wheel gets the grease.