Started By
Message
re: GA HB 757 - Should Deal sign it?
Posted on 3/24/16 at 10:14 am to fibonaccisquared
Posted on 3/24/16 at 10:14 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
Not just because they're gay, no.
So you'd force a pastor to marry an LGBT couple against his religious beliefs? Because that is part of what this bill is about.
quote:
Many hospitals are privatized. Should the doctors there be able to refuse care to someone due to their religious beliefs?
Example of this would be....? What religious belief would prevent a person from offering medical care to someone in need who was LGBT? Most religious beliefs are founded on caring for those in need first, regardless of race, sexual orientation, etc. But things like this...baking cakes, making flower arrangements, conducting wedding ceremonies...these are not life and death issues and a person who is refused by one has plenty of options (yet suing seems to be the option of choice now).
2
Posted on 3/24/16 at 10:17 am to 3rddownonthe8
quote:
Is it really worth it to take a stand , when the state looks t
Absolutely not. We should allow every special interest group demand we mold our laws according to their every whim.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 10:18 am to fibonaccisquared
Religion and politics shouldn't mix.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 10:23 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
why should private business owners be told who they have to do business with? Just doesn't make sense to me.
I can walk into a brewery in Georgia and demand free samples of their beer. They're required to give them to me if i'm 21 years of age. There is an explicit law that gives me that right. Does it prevent me from looking like a giant douche if I did it? No... but it's in place anyways. There are plenty of laws that don't "make sense". The "private" business does business with the public citizenry... where does the private business owner's right end and the public's rights begin? That's what makes this stuff so difficult. In general, I find that the most strict definition of religious freedom does not extend to refusing service, particularly not when you push that precedent to the extreme as I've described. Others are free to disagree.
quote:
“Religious Liberty shall be interpreted to include freedom to worship according to conscience and to bring up children in the faith of their parents; freedom for the individual to change his religion; freedom to preach, educate, publish and carry on missionary activities; and freedom to organize with others, and to acquire and hold property, for these purposes.”
Coupling this with the Supreme Court stance in my previous post, I've yet to see where anything is encroached upon by requiring individuals to do business with paying patrons. If you are rude, offensive, etc. you then have cause for denial of service. Simply not liking a quality about an individual and thus denying service seems to be a) a poor business decision and b) bigotry at its finest - which then when coupled with the action treads on others rights making the legal issue.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 10:24 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
why would the SEC Championship leave if we don't let gays marry
It has more to do with people being being able to deny services to anyone because of their religious beliefs. For instance....should a pastor of a Baptist (Methodist, Catholic etc) church be forced to marry a gay couple? It stems back to (IMO) the cake guy that refused to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding based upon his religious beliefs. Instead of going to another bakery, they sued, and I believe they won.
Before anybody starts criticizing me (Because I am an openly and vocal Christian poster) .....my personal belief is this:
Homosexuality is a sin. However, so is someone cheating on their wife. I would not deny services to someone cheating on their wife, even though I might disagree with what they are doing.
Now, in the case of a pastor, he would be aiding in a sin, by marrying them, so I fully understand why no one should be required to marry anyone else...particularly if that would force them to violate their belief.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 10:26 am to IT_Dawg
quote:
"anti-LGBT"
I disagree that it is a "Anti-LGBT" bill. It simply protects someone from violating their beliefs. Now...this is as I understand it. You guys might know more about the bill than I do.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 10:34 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
This is something else entirely. There are any number of ways to refuse to do business with someone without making it a publicity stunt because you believe your religion needs to be in the forefront.
Actually...in the case of the bakery/wedding cake...it was the gay couple that made it an issue by bringing their sexuality to the forefront. They could have gone to any number of other bakeries for their cake, but sued that one. I might be wrong here...but I think the bakery owner even offered to recommend another very good bakery.
I don't know if you are religious or not....but assume you are. Would you want someone to force you to go against your beliefs?
Posted on 3/24/16 at 10:36 am to S1C EM
quote:
So you'd force a pastor to marry an LGBT couple against his religious beliefs? Because that is part of what this bill is about.
No. I think that one falls squarely in the religious realm. That would truly be the government dictating what the pastor does/does not believe in. I have no issue with that limitation, it's the extension of that right to areas that do not squarely relate to religious belief and instead actions.
quote:
Example of this would be....? What religious belief would prevent a person from offering medical care to someone in need who was LGBT? Most religious beliefs are founded on caring for those in need first, regardless of race, sexual orientation, etc.
LINK /
There are others, but this was the one that immediately jumped out from memory. Some may argue that it was not "in need", but a newborn is about the most in need kind of patient there is. The practice found another doctor, but there is a lot that goes into selecting a doctor and this is a prime example of a "slippery slope".
This was another example of a transgender being refused service post treatment: LINK
Posted on 3/24/16 at 10:36 am to S1C EM
quote:
Example of this would be....? What religious belief would prevent a person from offering medical care to someone in need who was LGBT? Most religious beliefs are founded on caring for those in need first, regardless of race, sexual orientation, etc. But things like this...baking cakes, making flower arrangements, conducting wedding ceremonies...these are not life and death issues and a person who is refused by one has plenty of options (yet suing seems to be the option of choice now).
Agreed.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 10:37 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Homosexuality is a sin.
Curious on why you think this is? Just curious on why religious people are so afraid of two people being in love. I feel like there's a million other things to worry about.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 10:48 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Would you want someone to force you to go against your beliefs?
Here's the thing... there is *nothing* about baking a cake for someone that is against religious beliefs. It's extending religious connotation to a non-religious act. Additionally, there is nothing in the bible that says "thou shalt not do business with a sinner"... it's not a religious belief, it's a bigoted opinion.
There are plenty of people that I don't like, but I don't get to treat them like shite just because I want to. I can't do so as an employer, I can't do so as an employee, and businesses can't do so without cause.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 10:52 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
No. I think that one falls squarely in the religious realm. That would truly be the government dictating what the pastor does/does not believe in. I have no issue with that limitation, it's the extension of that right to areas that do not squarely relate to religious belief and instead actions.
I can totally understand what you're saying. I pretty much agree. The thing is, it's a slippery slope and we are heading down the path of exactly this. It's well known amongst pastors that this is where it's going. Today, it's the bakery (which did get sued and subsequently went out of business because of the suit); tomorrow, it will be things in the "religious realm". It's only a matter of time before a gay couple brings that suit.
That said, I think Chick-fil-A has got this thing down pat. They are staunchly religious, but they serve all people the same. As Christians, I think that's how we have to approach it because these interactions are opportunities to minister. Jesus didn't spend most of his time with the religious "right" people of his time.
What I think is a more valid issue is something like Hobby Lobby where they are not okay with being forced to provide healthcare that covers abortions.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 10:56 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
Here's the thing... there is *nothing* about baking a cake for someone that is against religious beliefs. It's extending religious connotation to a non-religious act. Additionally, there is nothing in the bible that says "thou shalt not do business with a sinner"... it's not a religious belief, it's a bigoted opinion.
There are plenty of people that I don't like, but I don't get to treat them like shite just because I want to. I can't do so as an employer, I can't do so as an employee, and businesses can't do so without cause.
Well said, and that's coming from someone who still thinks the bakery should have been left alone.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 11:01 am to tissle
quote:
Curious on why you think this is? Just curious on why religious people are so afraid of two people being in love. I feel like there's a million other things to worry about.
I'm not him, but you already know. There's no way you're willing to enter into this discussion without knowing what the basis for the belief is. You just don't agree with it. And that's okay.
That said, it really doesn't bother me. I treat everyone the same and serve everyone the same. I'm not afraid of people being gay, though I am saddened by it. Saddened because as far as I am concerned, it is an example not just of someone who has sinned, but someone who is choosing to live IN sin. And there is a difference because one can repent whereas the others don't believe there is anything to repent from.
quote:
Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Romans 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Posted on 3/24/16 at 11:02 am to WG_Dawg
quote:I like this
I mean, if Lew decided he didn't want to sell plaques to tech fans
Posted on 3/24/16 at 11:10 am to S1C EM
quote:
I'm not him, but you already know. There's no way you're willing to enter into this discussion without knowing what the basis for the belief is. You just don't agree with it. And that's okay.
That said, it really doesn't bother me. I treat everyone the same and serve everyone the same. I'm not afraid of people being gay, though I am saddened by it. Saddened because as far as I am concerned, it is an example not just of someone who has sinned, but someone who is choosing to live IN sin. And there is a difference because one can repent whereas the others don't believe there is anything to repent from.
You're right. I just don't agree with it.
I'm catholic, but I guess what separates me from most other religious folks is that I don't take the bible literally. I understand it is written in a different time frame and reading it literally forces you reader to interpret it without any context.
I guess it annoys me that some people pick and choose which verses to believe in while ignoring others.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 11:22 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
where does the private business owner's right end and the public's rights begin? That's what makes this stuff so difficult.
It's not at all difficult. And there is no gray area........... It's called PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, dipshit.
One of your busybody neighbors has no right to walk on to your private property and tell you what you can or can't do on it, and it doesn't change if you kick him off your property and he comes back wearing a government costume with an "official" badge pinned on his chest.
You either believe in private property rights or you don't. And by extension, you either believe in freedom or you don't. The End.
The world is being taken over by commies. This sucks.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 11:36 am to tissle
quote:
I understand it is written in a different time frame and reading it literally forces you reader to interpret it without any context.
I get what you're saying and that maybe a lot of people do this and interpret based on the way they understand the world today. But it's pretty easy to get a good study Bible and learn about the practices, cultures, beliefs, etc. that were in play in Biblical times and get a grasp on what the writers were depicting.
And while there are some verses in the Bible that could be viewed metaphorically, the verses I gave you above are not any of those. Those verses are pretty straight-forward. The problem is, as we have decided to hurt no one's feelings and embrace all thoughts on all things, people are now afraid to stand steadfast in their beliefs and instead are watering those beliefs down to "accept" everyone. As Christians, though, while we are to be kind and compassionate to ALL people, that doesn't mean we are to condone sin. Period.
You say you're Catholic and, if I understand correctly, that means you are supposed to interpret the Bible literally (while looking to understand the larger meaning/context behind what each author wrote). If you are choosing to make your own interpretation, I would caution that you are leading yourself away from your faith thinking you are doing the right thing...when you are not. You are caving to the world and you are adjusting your beliefs to fit the current worldview. I'm not criticizing you, though. We've all done it to some extent. I just hope you find a way to change that before you allow yourself to be swept up in the here and now.
And what annoys you annoys a lot of us. But we're all guilty at some point. That's what grace is all about.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 11:56 am to Jefferson Dawg
quote:
It's not at all difficult. And there is no gray area........... It's called PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, dip shite.
If you want private property rights to extend to private businesses in relation to what is proposed in HB757, you have to go all the way back and rework the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 12:07 pm to S1C EM
quote:
Well said, and that's coming from someone who still thinks the bakery should have been left alone.
I understand that this is difficult for many. I appreciate that you're willing to discuss this in a civilized manner without jumping to name calling as is typically illustrated in these discussions.
quote:
Jefferson
I generally leave you to your own squalor of self righteous indignation. I will continue to do the same. Suffice it to say, you don't have a full grasp on the current legal state regarding property law and how it pertains to this discussion.
Page 2 of 10
Latest Georgia News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News