What Do You Think Of The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Bill?

I'm not arguing that businesses should be allowed to practice racism, although it would probably die a much quicker death if left to the public and the consumer to end it naturally. I've always thought race would not be much of an issue at all if we would simply quit classifying people as African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, Irish American, etc., although it has become a major political tool.

 

You shouldn't need to ask. There are laws which prevent people from being refused a meal, as long as they have the means to pay for it, or be derided in public, unless they oppose a view of the Left, as well as against badgering, beating and torturing.

 

I'm not saying "Why shouldn't people want segregation" but would you complain if the elements of society you disagree with most were to be disassociated from the society as a whole? Or are you worried that you might in reality be a member of the group everyone else would like to disassociate from?

There is quite a difference between a man and a woman, and difference does not necessarily mean unequal. By using terms such as African American, Hispanic American, etc. NOT classify them differently.... as unequal to everyone else? What about democrat/republican, liberal/conservative? Does that NOT perpetuate and exacerbate the "Us vs Them" view of bigotry/racism/etc.?

 

While they might be in violation of the law, I would not make noise were the legal system to refuse prosecuting on behalf of the KKK.

 

Six posts in a row? That's so ... straight.

 

boss-man's been getting serious about keeping itemization straight. The guys in purchasing don't like having to dig through posts and count quotes.

 

its obviously not about 'restoring' anything. like 'doma', its a direct and deliberate attack on what little protection there ever has been, for REAL religious freedom.
if there was real religious freedom, there would be more completely different KINDS of religions then anyone has ever heard of.
not only that, but there would not be one or two or even a mere handful, claiming a vast majority of followers either.
i'd love to see religious freedom. REAL religious freedom.
not freedom limited to identifying yourself with which meaningless sect, of one of no more then a handful of dominant beliefs.

 

There would definitely more Eastern religion in Western countries than there is now. That would be a very positive step in the direction of world peace.

 

If you have a secular, commercial business... then, no, you have a duty to serve anyone who comes into your shop and asks for a legal service.
And as I just stated in my last post, it's bullshit anyway.

You want to claim homosexuality is a sin you can't abide, then any females in your business/family should shut their shameful mouths when in a church.
I mean, that's what it says in 1st Corinthians... the same book where homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament.
Oh... and if those women think they learned something, or have a question about something... they need to keep their mouths shut until they get home.
Then they get to ask their husband to explain to them what the truth is.

If that isn't happening, then the objection to homosexuality is just simple bigotry.

 

Thank you for agreeing with my "subjective interpretation" (read: logical conclusion).
"implicitly stating that no man has a 'right' to rule over the lives of other men"

The freedom of religion is the same as freedom from religion, since it implies one persons religion should not influence another's religion or lack of one.
If you own a public, commercial business, you're duty is to provide services to anyone who walks into your store that isn't asking for something illegal.
(That includes hate speech/actions.)

As a customer, you should expect to be able to be served by any commercial business, regardless of how you're born.
(And no, homosexuality isn't a choice... just ask all the kids who commit suicide because their parents disowned them if they had a choice.)

 

You may not think you're arguing for that, but that's exactly what your comment allowed for.

And while I get what you're saying about just classifying people as "American" instead of "[whatever]-American", there's also a respect for heritage in those designations.
(Although, personally, I have an issue with "African-American" meaning "Black", since there are black people who don't identify as being African in origin and non-blacks who do identify as African... like Charlize Theron.)

 

Sorry, but forcing a subset of people to use a different path than others use is segregation.
"No, really, you're just as good as the whites, but... blacks get to use their own fountain and entrances."
"Homosexuals are just as equal, they just can't be "married" and get to join in a "civil union" instead."

Calling someone "homosexual" does not segregate them automatically.
Calling someone "Democrat" vs "Republican" doesn't classify them into groups that have separate rights and services.
You would need to define that Dems get to use one restroom while Repubs have to use a different one.
Or Liberals get to drink from one fountain and Conservatives have to drink from a different one.
Same for all your other examples.

 

Maybe they should have named the bill the "Individual Freedom Restoration Act" as calling it the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" appears to imply that only those with religious beliefs feel a need for such a bill.

You falsely imply that I want to claim homosexuality a sin which I cannot abide, which I have not. In fact, it is my opinion that homosexuality for most/many/some persons is more likely attributed to being a genetic aberration.

As many, including myself have stated numerous times the acceptance of homosexuality is not the issue, simply the redefinition of the word marriage. Those who are attracted to partners of the same sex are entitled to enjoin in a consensual same sex partnership, and if need be laws can and should be adjusted entitling them to the same government benefits provided a married couple. After all a marriage licence is little more than a legally binding contract between a man and a woman, and by the creation of another name or names for equally legally binding contracts between two men and/or two women would achieve the same result in with much less room for argument.

You bring up the term bigotry, which is defined as "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself". Is that not pretty much what you're displaying in your posts? I've not condemned homosexuality, but have simply attempted to propose a solution which would provide/produce the same end results through different means.

 

First, sorry about not being clear... when I said "You want to claim homosexuality is a sin", I meant Christians in general... not you specifically.
my bad on that one

Now, on the marriage thing.
What you're describing is part of the problem.
You're not talking about equality.
You are describing, literally and specifically, the use of segregation as if it makes everything ok.

When you argue that "marriage" is only allowed between a man and woman, that is based on religious beliefs.
In the USA, we have freedom of religion... which means, if my religion says two people of the same sex can be "married", then theyc an.
It also means if I don't have a religion and want to be "married" to someone of the same sex, I'm supposed to be able to do that.
At least, if I'm being American about it... and not this pretend America that conservatives and Christians seem to think we live in.
Sorr Actually, no... I'm not sorry... the fact is, we don't live in a theocracy... or, at least, we're not supposed to.
We've just had Catholics and Christians in the large majority of positions of power so long, that many people think we're supposed to be governed by those Biblical laws and regulations.

As for bigotry, here's a more detailed definition:
bigotry - a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

So, no... I'm not acting bigoted.
I'm not saying Christians should be barred from certain services or actions because of who they are.
I'm not displaying hate for a group of people based on who they were born as, or even chose to be.
I'm displaying an intolerance of bigotry, racism and homophobia.
I'm displaying an annoyance with people who think their religion should be used as a basis for American laws, when we are supposed to be a country not ruled by any religion.


I just would like to see America live up to her potential.

 

It's been mentioned before - govt should get out of the marraige business . A license ? Special benefits ?
I support Individual .

 

While it may be true that Christians 'in general' believe homosexuality to be a sin, the 1st Amendment of our Constitution clearly recognizes a right to have such a belief, along with the free exercise of it. As long as Christians, or non-Christians do not allow their beliefs to inflict harm upon others who they feel are sinful or committing wrongful acts according to their beliefs Congress is prevented from making any laws which would force them to associate in a way forcing them to accept what they feel to be a sinful or wrongful way of life. Hence, we have societies, which are simply people who live together in a peaceful and orderly way.

What have I said which you seem to feel is inequality? The word 'marriage' has long been defined as the union between a man, the husband and a woman, the wife and given legal recognization under laws regarding responsibilities and entitlements. Partnerships made up of a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman are similar yet different. To call one a marriage, and the other two something different does not imply that there should be any difference in how they are treated, but simply what they are referred to in communicating.

Based on your interpretation of 'freedom of religion' and 'freedom of no religion' then one group should be free to recognize the marriage and the other free to not recognize it. I'm trying to find a way to resolve the problem in a way that results in a solution which the union of a couple made up of two persons of the same sex would have to be recognized by distinctly different, which they are, but totally equal in how they are treated legally, and perhaps allowing them to be more easily accepted socially.

Obstinate intolerance appears to be over the definition or redefinition of the word marriage, and equally applicable to those who are arguing to change or retain the meaning.

I'm sure there are some who may hate those who are homosexual, and others who hate those who are religious.
I don't think any religion should be used as a basis for Federal laws, and like I have said numerous times a simple word creation could put an end to the argument over same sex couples being treated the same as opposite sex couples.

Americas potential as what? A nation of people who are free to live within continually growing constraints limiting their choices until there is but one choice allowed in any decision, and that being one allowed by those elected and/or appointed to a position in the Federal government?

 

I'm going to have to say I don't agree with naming marriage anything else.

If two people want to enter into a legally binding marriage contract, then they will have the same legal obligations as every other married couple. They will have the same rights as every other married couple. In my eyes, it can't be called anything other than a marriage contract.

It's just not necessary.

It would be like having to call all red cars "cars", all the blue ones "vehicles", and all the black ones "automobiles".

Too much hoop jumping is not freedom.

 

That's exactly what your opponents are saying.

Or, you could say that if two people wish to enter into a legally binding contract, they would have the same legal obligations regardless of their gender.

So it's NOT necessary to call it a marriage.

Red cars, cars, blue ones, vehicles, black ones, and automobiles are genderless words. All motor vehicles are not called cars, some are called trucks, and there are even some called motorcycles. The issue being discussed is not related to color, but only to gender. One previous post brought up interracial marriages which once were not widely accepted, but they were between a man and a woman, and for that matter 'humans' regardless of skin color, ethnicity, religion (or lack of), etc. are a single species of animals and like most other species who reproduce via copulation exist in both a male and a female gender which has resulted in the lexicon of languages to provide many gender specific words allowing us to more clearly communicate with one another.

The freedom to enter into a contract seems to be the issue. The contract, regardless of what it is called, defines the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved. As for things like taxes or familial rights and/or responsibilities the genderless word 'spouse' rather than 'husband' or 'wife' suffices in reference to ones partner. It is not necessary to jump through any hoops to accomplish what, in my opinion is a very simple issue to resolve in actuality.

 

To get back to the topic:

Indiana now has a public relations problem that they will be throwing Two Million Dollars at.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/13/state-hires-pr-firm-to-rebuild-image-after-rfra/25729983/

The CEOs of Yelp and Salesforce said they would scale back investments in Indiana, and Apple CEO Tim Cook excoriated the new law in an op-ed for The Washington Post. San Francisco’s mayor and Connecticut’s governor banned state-funded travel to Indiana. Even the NCAA, which is set to hold its Final Four Saturday in Indianapolis, said it would “closely examine” the law’s implication to see if it puts the organization’s inclusive values at risk.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/mike-pence-indiana-gay-rights-116532.html#ixzz3XIEACSh6

One poll says Pence has shot himself in the foot.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/indiana_gov_mike_pence_s_approval_ratings_crash_after_religious_freedom_firestorm

Hilary Clinton weighed in with her opinion.

Code:

Hillary Clinton jumped in the ring, tweeting that she was “sad” and that “we shouldn’t discriminate against ppl bc of who they love #LGBT.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/mike-pence-indiana-gay-rights-116532.html#ixzz3XIEA2Nqx