Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Georgia governor says he will veto religious exemption bill

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Steve573 View Post
    I agree that a public office holder needs to uphold the laws they are bound by, and their personal beliefs shouldn't enter into it. If they think they may have a problem performing the job due to their beliefs they shouldn't ever take the job in the first place. The woman in Kentucky was a fool and should have been recalled by the voters after she got out of jail.

    I don't feel comfortable with the government regulating what a church can or can't do which is what I thought GA was trying to address, not public officers but whether the state was compelled to force churches to perform services that they believed were in conflict with their beliefs.
    Completely agree; when you start imposing that kind of legislation on churches you are beginning to fool with the "establishment clause" and the right to free speech, however reprehensible that may be.
    Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

    Initiated Chief Petty Officer
    Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
      Bullshit!!! I already articulated why this is thoroughly wrong.
      You dithered about, but you proved squat.
      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
        You dithered about, but you proved squat.
        Here it is as simply stated as possible; the "sincerely held religious convictions" argument was also used to defend anti miscegenation laws (read inter-racial marriage). These states that are passing these bits of legislation that defend not providing service to gays and lesbians because it would violate "sincerely held religious convictions" are opening up a Pandora's Box that could lead to discrimination masquerading as "sincerely held religious convictions. Bear in mind the religious argument that organizations like the KKK and the Arian Nation have used to justify their racist beliefs. Finally, doesn't it strike you as ironic that America's conservatives, people that routinely rail against government intrusion into private lives, seem to spend so much time worrying about what is going in people's bedrooms?
        Last edited by Bass_Man86; 07 Apr 16, 07:21.
        Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

        Initiated Chief Petty Officer
        Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
          Finally, doesn't it strike you as ironic that America's conservatives, people that routinely rail against government intrusion into private lives, seem to spend so much time worrying about what is going in people's bedrooms?
          I think that's the big misnomer in our party politics. I've accepted the fact that I won't see a major party in my lifetime that represents my social and financial politics.

          I'm a political pariah no matter where I go! Luckily, I know some people that enjoy political pariahs!

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
            Here it is as simply stated as possible; the "sincerely held religious convictions" argument was also used to defend anti miscegenation laws (read inter-racial marriage). These states that are passing these bits of legislation that defend not providing service to gays and lesbians because it would violate "sincerely held religious convictions" are opening up a Pandora's Box that could lead to discrimination masquerading as "sincerely held religious convictions. Bear in mind the religious argument that organizations like the KKK and the Arian Nation have used to justify their racist beliefs. Finally, doesn't it strike you as ironic that America's conservatives, people that routinely rail against government intrusion into private lives, seem to spend so much time worrying about what is going in people's bedrooms?
            Why can't they just pass a bill that protects churches from being forced to perform gay marriages just in case some gay couple decides to sue the church or pastor that refuses to perform the wedding (and mark it down, it will happen)?
            I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
            --Salmon P. Chase

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
              Here it is as simply stated as possible; the "sincerely held religious convictions" argument was also used to defend anti miscegenation laws (read inter-racial marriage). These states that are passing these bits of legislation that defend not providing service to gays and lesbians because it would violate "sincerely held religious convictions" are opening up a Pandora's Box that could lead to discrimination masquerading as "sincerely held religious convictions. Bear in mind the religious argument that organizations like the KKK and the Arian Nation have used to justify their racist beliefs. Finally, doesn't it strike you as ironic that America's conservatives, people that routinely rail against government intrusion into private lives, seem to spend so much time worrying about what is going in people's bedrooms?
              Anything that protects religious freedom is a good thing.
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Savez View Post
                Why can't they just pass a bill that protects churches from being forced to perform gay marriages just in case some gay couple decides to sue the church or pastor that refuses to perform the wedding (and mark it down, it will happen)?
                I guess the issue there comes down to the issue of defining their activities as being different from the rest of the business world. If you're charging money for your services, then religious or not it seems like one could argue it falls into the business world, and since the government has for generations intervened on grounds of descrimination there, it seems hard to justify that it's only okay when it's religiously grounded.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  Anything that protects religious freedom is a good thing.
                  'Anything' is a broad stroke. In this case there has to be a process to determine legitimate claims from those that are detrimental to the public, or obviously false.

                  For example: Is it okay for a Quaker doctor to refuse to treat me because I
                  serve in the military, and they are opposed to the Global War on Terrorism? Is it okay for a Christian teacher to refuse to teach a student who altered their body with tattoos?

                  At the end of the day, the fervent Christian businessman who refuses to do business with sinners will soon be out of business.

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X