Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory
An anonymous reader writes It will come as no surprise that Apple's CEO Tim Cook doesn't agree with so-called religious freedom laws. Cook says, "[they] rationalize injustice by pretending to defend something many of us hold dear," and has penned an op-ed piece for The Washington Post which reads in part: "A wave of legislation, introduced in more than two dozen states, would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors. Some, such as the bill enacted in Indiana last week that drew a national outcry and one passed in Arkansas, say individuals can cite their personal religious beliefs to refuse service to a customer or resist a state nondiscrimination law. Others are more transparent in their effort to discriminate. Legislation being considered in Texas would strip the salaries and pensions of clerks who issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — even if the Supreme Court strikes down Texas' marriage ban later this year. In total, there are nearly 100 bills designed to enshrine discrimination in state law. These bills rationalize injustice by pretending to defend something many of us hold dear. They go against the very principles our nation was founded on, and they have the potential to undo decades of progress toward greater equality."
"Religious freedom" in all its guises empowers and gives "freedom" to religious assholes and oppressors to take away the freedom of others.
Religion is a Trojan Horse for other backwards notions, like giving superstitious and ignorant people the right to silence speech they deem "offensive". The most fucked-up countries are the ones where somebody can use take arbitrary "offence", and use that office to attack somebody. E.g. the offence of "insulting a Muslim" in most Islamic countries.
Anybody propagating the idea that it should be illegal to "give offence" should be stabbed in the head, imnsho.
I just don't buy iPhones because I don't agree with the poor working conditions in Apple factories. See how that works Tim?
Either that, or "Treat others like you would like to be treated."
Honestly, the self-righteousness of the "religious" is getting to be annoying.
If you and your religion wish to be able to discriminate against someone on the basis of your religion, then you and your religion should correspondingly lose the legal protection of being discriminated against.
If you are such a whiny idiot that you think it should be OK to say "we don't serve your kind here", then you should have no legal or moral basis to claim that someone shouldn't be able to do the same to you.
This is giving religion an extra special place in law ... protected from being discriminated against, while getting a special exemption to discriminate against someone else.
So either shut up, and accept that you have no other ways you're legally allowed to discriminate against someone ... or accept that it should also be someone else's right to refuse you because of your religion.
There is no in between, and any claims your religion is so precious as to require you receive rights nobody else has is complete crap.
Sorry, but the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIL want to have a society based on religious exceptionalism.
Which makes people who want to have religion be a special thing in law are full of shit, self entitled people, and are actually the enemies of a free and open society.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Probably strongly and vocally oppose this bill.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Are stupid.
Religion is not something innate, like sexuality or race, and it's not something that people have no choice over (disability, for example). It's something people have a choice about, and if they choose to be religious, they should have to deal with the consequences of that. Generally, I think religious people are closed minded and less intelligent, and if they were more open minded, they wouldn't obey a book blindly or believe in things that have absolutely no basis in reality (for example, God created the world 6000 years ago). It should not be a protected class like something like race is.
In short, people choose religion, so people should be able to choose discriminate against people because it.
This is blow back for overreach. When we as a society conluded that we cannot employ common sense to indentify and negotiate grey areas (BECAUSE THERE ARE NO GREY AREAS!!!) like the difference between a religious wedding service provider declining to service to same-sex 'marriages' and a coffee shop refusing service to a same-sex 'couple,' people decided to legislately protect their human agency, and we may well wind up the worse for it.
I wonder if a cinema owner should be forced to sell tickets to black men.
Oh wait, I don't wonder that at all, because I'm not a bigoted idiot.
I choose who I do business with or have over my home all of the time. It's not based on religion I just don't do business with people I think are jerks.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Your analogy is completely wrong. Of course a pet store owner would be within their right to refuse the sale of an animal to a person that's going to abuse it.
A better example would be a shop worker refusing serve a gay man because the shop worker's religion says that homosexuality is a sin.
Religious Freedom is about the freedom to practice your religion, not to use it as an excuse to be an asshole to people.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what religion is about these days.
Summation 2
if the government can compel companies to do business with people they don't want to, how long will it be before the people are compelled to do business with companies they don't want to?
lose != loose
This is all just a distraction and pandering to a political base. No business that likes money and wants to continue making money will be discriminating against anyone. Big corporations surely don't care who or what you sleep with in bed at night if you want to give them money. Small businesses can't afford to lose a sale. And if a small business decides to put their own religious beliefs in front of making money, then so be it if they go under.
This is another "look over here; be outraged!" political move by the establishment to make sure no one is looking at any of the important issues facing us on the world stage while at the same time furthering the "left/right" political divide and causing more animosity amongst the LGBT community that the "straights" are trying to oppress them (even though no one, straight, republican, or otherwise actually supports legalized discrimination).
I think something irreligious non-libertarians miss in these discussions is the notion of harm.
I'm guessing that they see clear harm to a gay person in having a business refuse to perform a particular service for them.
But they see no harm in forcing a religious person to choose between being faithful to God and making their living.
In reality, gay people can usually find another place to get a cake decorated, and religious people can actually write the requested message on a cake. But irreligious people are making the value judgment that the former is less tolerable than the latter.
As far as I can tell, that prioritization is itself a religious judgment. It's saying that it's more wrong to refuse to blaspheme, than to blaspheme. That strikes me as very much an Enlightenment era notion of morality.
Lol, idiot much? Religion is NOT protected in the constitution, as a matter of fact the founding fathers try their best to EXCLUDE religion from all government affairs and ensure that there is no discrimination based on faith. Also, the first amendment is about protecting your freedom of expression. Noone is trying to get that from you, just get keep your barbaric traditions from public spaces you worthless piece of ignorant scum
You are ignoring that homosexuality is between consenting adults (the type that is legal anyway - homosexual rape isn't legal for example). Whereas bestiality and pedophilia are not. Which is a pretty significant difference making your "only difference" claim absurd.
This is another power grab by the religious right. It is connected to their efforts to restrict sex (through access to contraception, sex education, abortion, etc)...
But one doesn't need contraception. sex education, or abortion in order to have sex. After all, no other animals on our planet have contraception, sex education, or abortion and they have plenty of sex.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
So does this mean that as an anti-theist I can refuse service to those who practice religion?
As a Pastafarian can I refuse to serve noodles to those not wearing a colander?
As a Dude-ist can I refuse service to those that don't abide?
Seriously, I am curious to know how much these wingnuts have thought about the possibility that non-Christians might use this crap against them. Imagine the uproar is a Halal butcher turned away some Catholics, or a Jewish deli turned away some Baptists on religious grounds. Faux News would have an outrage-gasm.
actually, the laws and bills have not gone far enough.
some kind of visual indication should be included, so you know who the enemy is. maybe an armband. it could be phrased as a 'fashion statement'.
what could possibly go wrong with that? sounds pretty christian to me!
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
These laws won't last long after one brave business in each of these states puts up a simple sign: "No Christians."
How many Eddie Murphy movies should the owner be forced by law to screen?
Good grief, so many people are piling on and hating Indiana for this, but they are mistaken. This is not about saying "we don't serve your kind here". This is about establishing guidelines for government to avoid reflexively punishing religious individuals over their scruples of conscience.
If you want to talk about brainless and/or dishonest liberal media, today would be the day, because the NYT, CNN, and any number of other outlets are acting like this is something new and unnecessary that Indiana is doing, when in fact the opposite is true. There has been a very similar federal law on the books since Chuck Schumer proposed it and then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law. The only reason Indiana enacted a state law equivalent is that courts have determined that the federal law doesn't protect religious individuals from non-compliance with certain local laws.
This is not to allow the local deli to refuse to serve gays, and in fact will not allow them to do so. This is to prevent bullies and jerks from picking on people who happen to be small business owners over their religion.
Example: if a Christian goes to a kosher bakery and asks for "holy cross" themed rolls for an Easter party, and the proprieters kindly offer to refer them to the secular baker down the street, should the Christian sue those dirty Jews for all they've got, and attempt to bankrupt them and destroy their business over this scruple of religious conscience? No, of course not. The Christian would be a jerk in that case. So why are so many gays being jerks about the exact same kind of thing?
Actually the entire idea of these special entitlements that destroy individual rights TO DISCRIMINATE is a power grab by the insane government that is out of control.
Individual people discriminate every day. As a potential employee you can choose to work for a one legged Brazilian tranny and there is nothing any of the other potential employers can do to stop this obvious bigotry and discrimination by you against their businesses, NOR should there be anything they could do to force you to work for them. That's EXACTLY the same thing.
PRECISELY the same thing, since you working for a company is exactly like a company doing work for other people. When you buy a product you are buying work done by a company for you. A company is people standing behind it (corporations are in fact people, not as in 'Google is a living person', it is not. It is as in Google is owned by people, that's the people corporations are). A person that owns/runs a company has his or her right to discriminate and the Constitution of the USA is there to protect that right.
A right is a protection against government oppression and abuse, nothing else.
A government telling somebody that just because they are employing somebody they now lost a right is abuse and oppression and a power grab and unconstitutional and illegal and immoral.
Should people discriminate against each other based on sex, gender, age, race, colour? We know that some will and some do. If a business does so, it will face consequences whatever they are in the market. As to a belief that just because a business exists somewhere you automatically get an entitlement to their service - that is hubris and destruction of the people running that business as individuals and it cannot stand.
You can't handle the truth.
>And contrary to the delusions of most christians, they are the majority in this country and the only ones doing any persecuting are them.
Of course, many of them are totally dishonest and actually understand that all they've lost is the supposed right to violate people's civil rights, but other's actually are as stupid as they present themselves as, and think that not allowing them to discriminate is unfair bias against the bigots. They're all worse than useless, since they're easily duped into electing evil Republicans.
One brave and short-lived business. That's the problem with these laws; essentially they allow the majority to persecute the minority, under the cover of "religious freedoms". It strikes me as being no different than the same disingenuous arguments used to justify Segregation.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Go look how many times this claim has been made, how many times it has been refuted (including a good refutation in the VERY STORY you post here), and then tell me that the pro-RFRA folks are being intellectual honest.
Never mind, by even parroting this claim you have proven you have not trouble with lying at all.
No. The Pro-RFRA people, including Gov. Pence, are the ones who are being dishonest.
The IRFRA differs from the Federal RFRA on several key points. This is where the "there" is.
The Indiana Law is NOT "The same as what Obama Signed". Not even close. For one thing, the Federal RFRA had Bipartisan support. The Indiana RFRA was voted STRICTLY on Party Lines (guess which Party?). But the pro-RFRA crowd never mentions THAT, do they? they just keep talking about a Law that isn't THIS law.
Just like Mike Pence going on This Week yesterday and lying his ASS off REPEATEDLY by stating that this was ONLY restricting actions by the GOVERNMENT. That is only true if you count COURT ORDERS as an "Action by the Government". If you read the analysis of the Federal RFRA and Indiana RFRA linked above, you'll see that I am correct.
How to Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions.
Just pick "A" or "B" for each question.
My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.
2. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.
3. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.
4. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.
5. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.
6. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.
7. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.
8. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.
9. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.
10. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.
If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law.
If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others.
Edith Keeler Must Die
The problem is most of the people do not like a group of people, and such business are allowed to refuse services, we can create a situation where the outcast group cannot use the goods and services they need to function/survive in society.
We need business to offer goods and services for us to function, otherwise we will spending all of our time on our own survival. Having businesses refuse business based on aspects people cannot control means your are forcing people from the society.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Tolerance goes both ways.
In no way should a Christian business owner be forced to do something that violates his conscience. Ditto the homosexual business owner. Civil rights in no way trump religious rights an vice versa. If someone is a homosexual and they are refused a cake for their "wedding", they should just find a homosexual baker or someone willing to bake for them. Same goes for any business.
I'm personally intolerant of homosexuality. I don't dislike the individual homosexuals, but I will NEVER affirm their way of life -- and such will never be required of me. I'm actually a middle of the road guy politically, but I am a Christian -- and God's Word on the issue is firm. Love the sinner, hate the sin. And yes, I, too, am a sinner, but I'm not making the life choice for something that God has called an abomination in His eyes. I would welcome a homosexual into my church congregation with the understanding that he is there not for judgment, but healing. The church, properly run, is a hospital for sinners's souls, not a courtroom, but God will not be mocked. Just like homosexuals, I need to daily repent of my sins and ask God for His forgiveness -- and to exercise faith and obedience. God wants two things: faith and obedience. Obey God's Word == eternal life. Disobey, homosexual or heterosexual == eternal damnation.
I think Tim Cook misses the point. There is a world of difference between the government discriminating by not letting homosexual couples say file a joint tax return and Jane's Wedding Cake emporium refusing to put two groom cake toppers on their baked goods.
Civil rights laws that try and force a private business to serve all customers should be considered unconstitutional. We have the freedom of association under the first amendment that implies a freedom to disassociate from others or other groups in order to have any meaning at all, and if you won't accept that argument than refusing service or entry could also be viewed as kind of speech.
Personally I can't understand why any business would ever do this. To mean one person's dollars are as good as the nexts. I don't care what color, or gender passing them across the counter to me happens to be. I also don't really care about the religious ideas or sexual desires the mind governing that might hold, only that its willing to freely offer me dollars in exchange for whatever good or service I happen to be proffering. Same goes for hiring, I just want the person who will do the best job for lowest cost.
I don't think its right to deny someone based on race,color,creed, sexual orientation etc, but as strongly as I feel that is wrong, so do I feel about forcing someone to act against their will or conviction. So the baker who wont sell a wedding cake to the nice gay couple is a prick, he will loose their business and mine, because I'd prefer to do business which someone I think well of.
Ultimately the market prevails, you can the relative economic success of places across the world, and you find with a few exceptions that happen to be sitting on huge oil reserves, the wealthy places are the ones that don't have serious problems with race, or gender discrimination. I suspect that correlation is no accident.
Our economy is large enough that minority groups who face discrimination probably can find another employer or another shop who will treat them fairly. I don't think that is a problem, for one thing nobody can tell much about who or what you are behind a web form. I think we should err on the side of individual freedoms here.
Where we need to be careful though is all the places government is involved, if we don't make sure our tax policy, family law policies, education, civil services, law enforcement behavior, etc are equal for all citizens than we are failing as a free society. The 'system' should work for everyone.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
...after what happened to Mozilla CEO. I wholeheartedly support same sex marriage and plural marriage. I especially support alternative lifestyles entered by choice rather than because you were "born this way", because this country is about freedom of choice. I personally enjoy my choices and would hate to deny this to others. If an adult gay man wants to try conversion therapy to marry a woman he is not attracted to, it's no more our business than a woman who marries a rich guy she is not attracted to.
What I can not support is this notion that the only way you can be free is if nobody else is free. Brendan Eich was bullied out of his job just because he, as a private citizen, made a legal donation to a political campaign that most CA residents supported at the time. This is as reprehensible is a female CEO getting sacked because she had an abortion, and yet not a single gay rights organization came out against this. So despite donating money to oppose Prop 8, I will never again financially support these causes. I just can not be sure than my contributions will be used to promote equality rather than discrimination.
So I see how folks in Indiana would feel they need the law to make sure all personal beliefs are equally respected, not only most politically correct ones of the day. If I run a family IT shop and a bunch of Republicans show up wanting help with their campaign website, I don't want to serve them. How can I deny the same freedoms to a florist next door who doesn't want to participate in a same sex wedding?
This is all just a distraction and pandering to a political base.
No it is not. It is an attempt to enshrine bigoted ideology into law against a group of people who have done them no harm. Just because it is pandering does not mean it will not do real harm.
No business that likes money and wants to continue making money will be discriminating against anyone.
BULLSHIT. Plenty of racist homophobes actually support this nonsense. This is legislation that specifically targets minority groups that by definition do not have the population to fight back directly. "Ohh, 1% of our customer base is angry with us, whatever will we do..."
Big corporations surely don't care who or what you sleep with in bed at night if you want to give them money.
Do you seriously think that the owners of Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby wouldn't force their religion on others if given the chance? Companies are guided by people and people have biases. It's not even remotely difficult to find examples of companies discriminating against entire classes of people including women, blacks, hispanics, asians etc even when doing so is explicitly against the law. Ask women how that equal pay thing is going these day.
And if a small business decides to put their own religious beliefs in front of making money, then so be it if they go under.
If it were a fair world I would agree with you but reality frequently doesn't work that way.
If you assume that their religious view is false (which is a judgment the government is not supposed to make), then I'd say the religious person is being harmed in precisely the same manner as that of a gay person who can't get his/her cake decorated with a certain message: it's simply a matter of hurt feelings.
If a religious person's view is true, then you're forcing them to have an alienated relationship with God (the Christian view), or by apostate (I think a Muslim view, but I could be wrong), and at a heightened risk of eternal damnation.
A religious person could argue that an atheist's imaginary world view should not be his problem either. My point in saying that I can't see how to have a clear separation of church and state in cases like this. Secularists win and religious persons lose, or vice versa, as far as I can tell.
Everyone discriminates. You choose physical / personality traits that you require in someone to date / marry / have sex with. You choose your hobbies, bands, etc. You say "I love McDonald's" or "I hate White Castle". EVERYONE DISCRIMINATES.
Not one of those forms of discrimination causes societal harm. Whom you chose to date does NOT cause the same problems as denying someone basic civil rights because they are a woman or a minority. There are some forms of discrimination that are plainly harmful to society so we protect classes of people against discrimination. No it is NOT ok to pass over someone for a job or pay them less because they have a vagina. No it is NOT ok to refuse service to a well behaved patron in a restaurant because of their skin color. Do not confuse basic consumer choices with civil rights.
Then with the Civil Rights movement, they decided that for blacks to have equal rights, business owners had to lose their rights (yeah, I don't get the logic either).
Say what now? You think it is ok for a business owner to refuse service on the basis of skin color? Business owners merely were required to actually follow the constitution (not to mention basic decency) which they could have been doing all along but didn't. "Don't get the logic"? Are you seriously that daft?
The only reason that people currently are opposed to the "religious freedom" law is because they don't like THAT religious view.
100% wrong. These "religious freedom" laws are simply sneaky attempts to enshrine and protect bigotry. Someone's religion should NEVER form a basis to refuse economic transactions because economic transactions are the domain of the state. That is a plain violation of the separation of church and state.
Its so clear then please point out in the constitution where it says "separation of church and state." I'll wait go and find it.
It's right next to "freedom of speech", which I'd lay down cash that you claim to cherish.
Grownups understand that things like "freedom of speech" and "separation of church and state" are phrases that refer to an enormous body of legal rulings that collectively establish and define those concepts. Grownups also recognize that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", and that a law keeping you from being an asshole to people you don't like is not oppressing your religious rights.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Civil rights laws that try and force a private business to serve all customers should be considered unconstitutional.
I don't think its right to deny someone based on race,color,creed, sexual orientation etc, but as strongly as I feel that is wrong, so do I feel about forcing someone to act against their will or conviction.
Our economy is large enough that minority groups who face discrimination probably can find another employer or another shop who will treat them fairly.
When people are proponents of laws like these I just hope they simply haven't thought about their opinion thoroughly enough. But here is someone who fully knows the ramifications of this opinion and is actually proud of it. I don't meet people like this often, and it is very chilling.
I simply couldn't imagine someone walking into a store with a "Whites Only" sign on the door and hear him say "Good for them for sticking up for their convictions." But it is clear that DarkOx is such a person. I guess I just have to take solace in the hope that most people don't think like him/her. I'm an upper middle class white male living in a wealthy liberal area, so it is quite likely I am in a bubble where I simply don't see how dark parts of this country still are.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
"In no way should a Christian business owner be forced to do something that violates his conscience....Civil rights in no way trump religious rights"
Do you believe that business owner should have the legal ability to refuse service to a black/hispanic/asian person, or a woman?
If not, what is it about homosexuality (an immutable characteristic) that is different than race or gender?
If so, why are you an bigot?
Religious Freedom, or Freedom of Conscience, originally meant that the government wouldn't try to impose a particular brand of religion on the people.
The concept has been abused and mutilated until now it's interpreted as "My religion gives me freedom to trample all over your civil rights".
As opposed to the feminist left's attempt to dictate that consent is mens responsibility alone? ..or how her body her right her choice is somehow still his responsibility? How about all the policy that's destroying healthy hetero families and marriage (I believe the stat is 50/50 now)? While the religious right wants to use the state to impose toxic culture and behavior, the left does too. Neither is acceptable. A mantra for a free society should include "Live how you want, but don't expect everyone to like you."
Yes indeed. But (some) people are able to evaluate the consequences of having sex, such that they would like to modify their behavior so that they can enjoy the act, without the consequences. By attempting to remove the means to do this, religion seeks to leverage people's actions through their concern for consequences (pregnancy and so on, if you are having trouble following.)
Inasmuch as religion has no relevance to my life, I have no interest in what they would like me to do, and I utterly reject anything that they would force me to do. Now, if you want to restrict your access to contraception, sex education and abortion along the lines of some set of religious dictates, that's perfectly ok. Just keep your superstitious claptrap away from my personal choices and you'll be fine. Otherwise, we have a problem.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
But you know what? Every article, every boycott and every protest is pushing them back. Similar bills are stalling or failing. The outrage at actions like these are causing more and more Americans to leave their religion in disgust. The more we drag this bullshit into the light, the more the theocrats feel the heat.
Fair enough, but what scares me is how many extremists are already in power, in Congress and in the Senate. And on the road to the White House. We as a society really do need to take a close look at what is known as the "christian dominionist movement". This movement seeks to establish an American theocracy with the rule of law given by the bible. We should think about what these people are actually proposing: the death penalty for abortion, both for doctor and mother. The death penalty for homosexuality. Here is an article to give you an idea of what I am talking about. A very good read on this subject is American Fascists.
It is easy to dismiss these people as being a crazy fringe. Indeed every society has its own lunatics. What is concerning is how this extreme form of christianity has infiltrated the main stream of christianity and what we commonly know as the christian right. What is extremely concerning is how many mainstream politicians share similar modes of thought to this movement. When I hear about laws such as what Tim Cook is writing about, I hear the clicking of a ratchet, bringing us a small step towards an American version of the taliban government.
Those of us with a sense of what is actually going on must work towards steering our society away from this cliff. Above all, we should promote the idea that although we live in a tolerant nation, we should never tolerate intolerance. The bastards who bring in laws like this should be run out of town.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Surely the fair thing to do is to let every other bigoted group ban who they want.
When people are proponents of laws like these I just hope they simply haven't thought about their opinion thoroughly enough. But here is someone who fully knows the ramifications of this opinion and is actually proud of it. I don't meet people like this often, and it is very chilling.
I agree with everything DarkOx said.
I simply couldn't imagine someone walking into a store with a "Whites Only" sign on the door and hear him say "Good for them for sticking up for their convictions." But it is clear that DarkOx is such a person.
I wouldn't say that. Rather--I'm glad that neither the government nor anyone else can force them to take the sign down. It's kind of like saying, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
In funny a way it's a good thing the society has reached a point where people have completely, absolutely, totally forgotten what religious freedom fundamentally means and why it's important.
Three or four hundred years ago, expressing your personal religious belief in the privacy of your own home could lead to soldiers dragging you off to prison and all of your wealth being confiscated by the state.
Religious freedom is the absence of that happening.