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

the fundamentalists want their own country i guess ..,

 

That is an eisegetical interpretation of the words, and quite a stretch at that. The words 'created' and 'treated' are not synonymous. However I do agree that all people should be treated fairly, but what is considered fair can be broadly interpreted. If there is one thing seriously lacking in our education system today, it is the lack of teachers who can present the founding documents and other writings in an exegetical way, and probably even more serious is the fact that most of our higher court appointments are made from persons who like you also exercise an eisegetical interpretation in reaching their decisions.

The founding principle was that no man has a right to rule over another man, and yes I know that slavery was accepted as an exception at the time of the founding, not with intent to perpetuate it but only to collectively unite the States for the purposes of protection. Had it been the intent to assure the permanence of slavery, slaves would have been counted as a whole person in the population relative to providing representation in the Federal government.

 

Were someone to open a Gay Wedding Catering Service and refuse to cater any but same sex weddings would it get the same attention? Do you think a man and a woman couple who were religious or simply not homosexual demand their wedding be catered by that business or simply look elsewhere for someone to cater their wedding?

Would a Black owned catering service have a right to refuse to cater a KKK meeting? I presume the KKK still exists?

A free people in a free and competitive market place should remain free to build or diminish there business prospects and profits as they wish in privately owned and operated enterprises. The consumer/customer will determine if or how long they remain in business. On the other hand large corporations owned by many people are highly unlikely to be allowed by their stockholders to act in ways which diminish their profits and stock values.

The only problem I see really existing is the definition of the word marriage, and that seems to be the largest obstacle needing a resolution. It's simply a communication problem which could in my opinion be easily solved by the creation of a new word or words synonymous with marriage, husband, wife, etc. which if those who are gay really wish to openly extol their gayness would make it much more easy to communicate. For example, when speaking to a same sex couple, how should you refer to the other member, if both are male is one considered to be a wife and which, or if both are female is one to be considered a husband and which? Husband and wife have always been gender specific words and useful as such in carrying out understandable communication.

My Wifes Aunt is a Lesbian, and I suppose you would call her a butch as she is the more dominant member and her companion much more feminine in appearance based on hair styles. They have lived together for several decades and both are treated as women, which they are and their sexual preference in no way has any effect on how they are treated although they do not claim to be married but then my Wife and I have never filed our marriage either with the government, having our wedding ceremony performed by her Father. Need I say we are Buddhist, although we don't believe in supernatural God's or an afterlife. I might add that the best answer I've ever received questioning the existence of God was from a Buddhist monk who responded, "It's not important, it's how you live your life that's important." I find it best to ignore both religious and political dogma and make my own choices of what is right and what is wrong on a case by case process. Neither religion nor government has sovereignty over my or anyone else's thought processes, as long as those thoughts do not impose upon others privately or publicly in a harmful way.

A final thought, Peace is not achieved by stirring up animosity. The media, politicians, and probably a great many others in this day of social networking, should stick to presenting the news, not creating it.

 

That could be big fun for the caterers. I'm assuming that the KKK chapter in this example has no objection to a little piss and shit being mixed into their food. Not enough to change the taste, of course.

 

Yes, exactly. He said something along the lines of a cake represents the baker's feelings on marriage

 

A parade permit is another issue entirely.

I'm sure there have been gay persons convicted of felonies as well, but how about a white owned catering service if they were to refuse to cater a KKK meeting based on religious grounds. And while there may be a case I've missed or not yet presented the stories were not about refusing to provide service to a gay couple but only a response to a hypothetical question of would they participate in providing their services for a same sex marriage which they do not recognize on religious grounds, which if they did would in essence be an hypocritical action.

The gay public bar would be a better comparison only if gays were being denied service at the public business where they were simply partaking of food, drink, or other services provided on a daily basis by the business. But, were I to enter a bar to have a scotch or a beer and exclaim that I was straight and then be told that it was a gay bar for gays only, I would simply say thank you and leave. Gays in my opinion have a right to associate or not associate with persons of their choosing, and by exclaiming that I was straight might be interpreted as I have an issue with their being gay and might wish to cause a commotion. I have frequently sat among a group of persons some of whom were gay and shared some home brew rice whiskey, sharing and passing around the same shot glass, and we can talk about any subject including sexuality, jokingly, and seriously without need of animosity and remain friends. Peace is most easily accomplished among people in groups where the right to disagree without need of violence rules supreme as we value one another for more important reasons. This is how lasting peaceful societies are properly built. Individuals who attempt to divide us over our obvious disagreements are usually shunned and more often than not move, leaving us to continue to disagree without ever displaying any forms of violence.

Sorry if I tend to ignore news stories and instead rely on my actual life experience living and working around the world and now in my third decade of retirement.

 

It totally sucks (no pun intended).

 

Or maybe even something much worse? A chocolate cake with an ex-lax icing might be the most appropriate and just desert.


Would a gay couple give that a thought when looking to have their wedding catered by a business who did not agree with same sex marriages? Why would anyone want to do business with someone who might not be motivated to provide the best service possible for any reason, racial, sexual, religious, political or something else?

 

In the words of Nancy Pelosi, "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it". It could bring a little of each, only time will tell, assuming the bill passes and is signed into law.

As we are a nation of laws, not men, perhaps it would be dutiful for those elected to government office to periodically read aloud fully, in open session each and every law on the books applicable to those who they govern just to familiarize them with the responsibilities that successive elected politicians have amassed upon the 'free' societies of which the nation is comprised.

 

Lack of alternatives, in many cases.

 

Assuming you are referring to the words of the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" your words are quite a stretch of interpretation of those words. The U.S. Constitution does not even mention the word marriage although some of the States Constitutions may as I've not read them all.

In any event, AND with attention to the post by Aerianne "Hide who you are?", why would same sex couples NOT want to have a unique word synonymous with marriage that would communicate the fact of a male or female having a same sex spouse leaving the word married to communicate an opposite sex spouse? I believe the Federal tax forms use the word spouse which is gender neutral.

Do any of the State RFRA bills specifically refer to LGBT persons? Could there be other issues in which they could be applied? One of my co-workers belonged to a religion that considered Saturday a holy day and he reached an agreement with the boss to not schedule him to work on Saturdays and to just charge him with refusing OT on OT equalization list if for a Saturday. The boss could have refused but did not.

 

I disagree, it's not eisegetical at all.
The entire Declaration is basically a way to say "You don't own me!" to the, what is now foreign, government.
It was probably more to do with social and financial class than anything else, honestly.

A good comparison would be if the 99% drafted a "You don't own me!" letter to the 1%.
(Although, people actually getting off their butts and voting would go a long way to evening out the playing field.)

But, no, I wasn't twisting it to mean what I want.
It declares we are created equal and endowed with (equal) rights by our Creator to pursue life, liberty and happiness.
Being denied service because of your sexual orientation is not an example of being afforded the right to any of the pursuits mentioned above.
Which in turn means, yes... all men should be treated equally as well as having been created equally.

 

I would hope any public business refusing service based on sexuality would be taken to task over it.
The hypothetical heterosexual couple should have the right to demand service by a public bakery, although there's a HUGE difference between your example and the real world issues...
See, RFRA allows a business to exclude one group of people while your example would be a business that excludes everyone, except for one group of people.
Or more simply, it's "For everyone... except you" vs "For just one group... everyone else is excluded."
Not to say either is right, but it's a major difference.
A difference that has legal protections for services that are specifically for one group or another, but not services that are explicitly for everyone, except for one group of people.

(For example, men aren't allowed in a women's shelter. Or, girls not being allowed to join the Boy Scouts. Or how only people of a specified race are allowed to apply for scholarships for that particular race.)
(As opposed to public schools not being allowed to restrict which children can attend, based on any way their born or religion they choose.)

Yeah, no.
You're arguing that businesses should be allowed to practice racism and that the market would just determine whether they should exist or not.
Sorry, but we need to have some rules in a civilized society.

If given the chance, there are plenty of businesses that would still gladly refuse service to black people, much less homosexuals.
Rand Paul himself has supported the idea that businesses should be able to refuse service to black people, so this isn't some long gone idea that exists only in the past.

Generally speaking. in a same sex marriage, both males are a husband and both females are a wife (unless otherwise specified).
If the wedding is between a transgendered person (or someone who identifies as the opposite sex) and another person, it may be best to ask first.
Although, I would imagine it usually goes along lines of which sexuality a person identifies as.
For instance, a masculine lesbian doesn't identify as male, she still identifies as female and is comfortable with her genitals as she was born.

To finish, a law allowing businesses to discriminate against homosexuals is harmful.
It perpetuates the stigma that leads to gay and trans persons being refused a meal, derided in public, badgered so badly some commit suicide or, at worst, beaten/tortured to death.

 

While it may seem like a good idea to you, it's actually a bad idea when you think it out.
You're basically saying, "Why shouldn't people want segregation?"

Creating a new term for marriage between same-sex couples further defines them as a separate class... as unequal to everyone else.
It perpetuates and exacerbates the "Us vs Them" view of bigotry/racism/etc.

 

And, when one is in a position of social power, like running a business, not serving someone is not a neutral, it is a direct harm.

 

You may disagree, yet you continue to post your subjective interpretation of the words without presenting any evidence contained in the document which supports your interpretation.
Essentially the document was written in reference to the King who throughout the document is shown to have been guilty of tyranny over the colonies and their inhabitants. In simplest terms, the text containing the words "all men are created equal", implicitly stating that no man has a 'right' to rule over the lives of other men nothing more, nothing less.

Just 'who' would you send that letter drafted by the 99% to? And for that matter, just what percentage of the 'so called' 99% do you think would support the letter? It's nearly impossible to get a simple majority to support any issue today without making it so complex that everyone can interpret it in a different way.

 

Taking the gay wedding cake as an example, I would not consider it wrong if they posted a sign stating "We do not support or condone same sex marriage, but if you simply wish to purchase a cake and decorate yourself we would be more than happy to sell you a cake."
People, including businesses, should not be compelled by law to take part in a ritual or celebratory event which they do not support.