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."
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) and control the lives of Americans in the bedroom. 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.
"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.
Bestiality is illegal. Homosexuality is not.
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.
How can one be considered "tolerant" when one does not tolerate intolerance?
How can one be considered "non-discriminatory" when one discriminates against discrimination?
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.
Fuck yeah I'll waste one on your happy ass, Trollerific AC. I've got 15 (now 14) to burn in 3 days, I'll never use 'em up in time.
A free market solution never worked in the Jim Crow south and it wont work now. Sure if you live in a big city or town, if one shop refuses to serve you, you can go to another, but what happens to a person who is in the minority who lives or visits a small town that is predominantly made up of religious bigots? There may be one gas station, one food market, one diner? Should the minority have to leave town to protect the rights of the bigoted religious majority?
Also, will the religious rights head explode when Muslims try to use their faith in the same way the Christians are trying too?
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.
The separation of church and state is way more clear in the constitution then wording of the 2nd amendment.
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
The real issue is not freedom of religion, the real issue is freedom from religion.
In this case they may find it backfires and opens the doors to extremes such Sharia Law, as an example, or even some high growth perversion of Christianity leading to another Crusade.
Stupid right? I just think religion opens too many of the wrong kinds of doors, it should be "Freedom From Religion".
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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).
Not a fag by any stretch (don't even like seeing dudes in my porn), but a Pagan. Religion is protected by the first amendment. Not only Christian Protestant religions, but MINE TOO! These laws allow the Protestants (Catholics aren't, on average, even as closed minded as these fuckers) to trample over my Religious Freedoms, which by their very definition goes against the First Amendment. Fuck you! Fuck the Horse you Rode In On! And Fuck your Mother and Father for even conceiving your happy ass! You do not have the right to infringe on my freedoms you stupid fuck!
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.
Replace "religion" with "social justice" in your comment, and it still makes exactly the same point.
The pro-homosexuality tyrants are just as bad as the anti-homosexuality tyrants, and vice versa.
Both exhibit a total lack of tolerance, just about different things.
Both also exhibit discriminatory tendencies, just toward different things.
Those of us who aren't on either side of this think it's all pretty fucking pathetic.
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
Really? You mean that there were other laws on the books saying that blacks or whites who sympathized with blacks were unable to start their own businesses?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
I think it's very clear that the only way to ensure tolerance is that we have to make people practice toleration. We have to force people to sell things to people they don't want to sell to, lend things to people they don't want to lend to, allow patronage to people that they don't want as patrons, accept donations from people they don't want as doners, and, in general, to let any protected class to have any transaction that they desire. I think it behooves us to make government bureaucracies that enforces tolerance. I think that no intolerant person should be permitted to be on the bureaucracy, because otherwise intolerance will creep in, which will allow intolerant people to do intolerant things. In fact, that's true of all government. No unprotected class should be permitted to hold any office in the legislature, executive, or judiciary. Those people are intolerant, and we can't allow their intolerant beliefs to pass intolerant laws, enforce intolerant acts, or made intolerant decisions. Only the tolerant people should be able to force their views on others. The intolerant people have views that can be dismissed out of hand. Those views shouldn't be allowed a forum in the media, on the internet, or anywhere in public. Only tolerant views are permissible. Tolerant views should be mandatory, and anything not mandatory should be forbidden.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
I think this issue illustrates perfectly why laws are the wrong solution to the problem of prejudice. You cannot legislate people's morals and, where the law deviates from their moral beliefs, they will find a way around it. The way to tackle these sorts of issues is through education: you cannot just tell someone that discriminating against person X because they do, or are, Y is wrong you have to give them the full picture and let them come to that conclusion on their own - or sadly not as the case may be.
Obviously this takes time but ultimately it leads to a long lasting, more fundamental change in society and is far more effective than trying to force someone to behave in a particular way through threats of imprisonment or fines. All the latter does is makes (figurative) martyrs to the cause and further strengthens the resolve of those who disagree with the law making the problem worse, not better. If you disagree think of a law closer to Slashdot's field: copyright. Many see nothing morally wrong with format shifting material which is legally purchased and yet many a nation's law say otherwise. Has that affected your moral beliefs and/or your behaviour when it comes to format shifting?
Well, Jesus ate with lepers... and unlike them, the gay ain't infectious...
But then again, how could I expect Jesus to be considered a role model by bigoted assholes?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
Are stupid.
Why? Why do they have "the right not to be mocked"? Does that idiot that searches corn circles while wearing a tinfoil hat so he won't be controlled by the Illuminati have the right not to be mocked?
I'm forced to live among people who have imaginary friends, and not only that, they let their imaginary friend dictate what they can do and who they may speak with! Where's my right to be left alone by those loonies?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm glad that what you feel "Needs2BeSaid" doesn't require any fact checking.
I've always believed that gay people should be free to live the way they want and that they shouldn't have to ask anyone's permission to get married. I also believe that people should be free not to associate with them (or anybody else), if they'd prefer.
If everyone is required to think the same way, they you're not actually free. It seems though, that many people have a passionate desire to save bigots from their own bad business decisions, and would rather just give them their money blindly, without making the decision to shop elsewhere on their own. If businesses want to attempt to discriminate, in this day and age, then let them try and watch them go out of business. Prevent them from discriminating and all you're doing is saving them from themselves.
Feeding the troll.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
Having trouble finding it? Here is a link to the constitution I'm still waiting for where "separation of church and state" in the constitution. When you find it let me know how that is more clear than "Shall Not Be Infringed" in the second. Oh you think its in the Bill of Rights well go look and let me know where. Show me the quote.
Conversely you can let me know how respecting the religious views of others (i.e. not " prohibiting the free exercise thereof") is Congress making a "law respecting an establishment of religion."
If you ask very nicely I may actually tell you where the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from, but if/when I do the whole quote will undermine your beliefs.
No one has the right not to be mocked.
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.
If they are open to the general public it ain't so clean cut.
Your home, yes. No questions about it. If you don't want any gays, Jews, blacks or Christians in your home, there's nothing anyone could say. I'd still consider you an asshole for discriminating people for something they have little control over (well, except the Christian maybe), but it's your private space and it should be your prerogative to decide who may and may not enter it.
It's different if we're dealing with a place that can (and by its very definition and the general idea behind it should) be frequented by visitors and other strangers you have no direct connection to, i.e. a business. What do you think would happen if someone made a "White only" restaurant? Or how about "Muslim only"? Think that would sit well?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How many Eddie Murphy movies should the owner be forced by law to screen?
No, abuse is usually defined by the actual vitcimization of someone. "The Very Idea" of something is not a form of victimization. I'm not victimizing Jews and Muslims by eating bacon. I'm not victimizing Christians during this season of Lent by eating bacon on Fridays. I'm not victimizing Hindus by having a bacon cheeseburger. I'm not victimizing Hindus by eating beef.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Seriously not flamebait, but bigots typically heavily vote Republican.
They are tired of this black muslim socialist and want a return to the days of Bush. So put amendments and put records like these will give pastors great sermons on who God approves to run their country come election day. It works as the religious right is THEE most powerful group in this country. Even more powerful than the NRA and those who want lower taxes.
No I am not saying you are a biggot if you are a Republican moderators. But I do say the religious folks are 85% are registered republicans thanks to Jerry Falwell and Reagan who tried to persued them to leave Carter and the democratic party behind.
It works it is time get ahead at any cost including taking away the rights of others. Racist governors did the same to Blacks too to bring supporters to the polls
http://saveie6.com/
How many Eddie Murphy movies should the owner be forced by law to screen?
Torture is also illegal
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
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?
...want people to pause to not gather the PC thing...
It's weird how some on the left are so eager to push "diversity" that they'll compromise our own liberal western values in the process of pandering to people who do not share these values.
Fair enough. Explain to us then the rational opposing position then. Explain to us the pro-discrimination position whereby we should be permitted to discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age, or even sexual orientation when none of those things should matter. Explain how these laws trying to push laws purporting to support "religious freedom" are actually anything other than an attempt by bigoted people to discriminate against others.
It sounds to me like you have an ideological issue with "some of the left" and are trying for some reason to justify what is plainly an attempt by right wing religious conservatives to codify bigotry into state law. 50 years ago those laws were called Jim Crow laws. This is just a later day version of separate but equal. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom to discriminate particularly on a religious basis.
Anyone can claim any action (or inaction) is a form of abuse
Yes, anyone can claim such. Proving such is an entirely different matter.
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
http://xkcd.com/1332/
Bert
You need to make up your mind. Do you want freedom, or do you not want freedom?
There isn't a range of freedom. You can't have just "some" freedom. You either have freedom, or you do not. Even the slightest restriction means that there is no freedom.
Having freedom means that people will express ideas that you don't like. If you're a homosexual, you'll just have to suck it up and accept that some people will express that it's wrong for two people of the same gender to get married, or for a man to put his penis up another man's rectum. If you're a Christian, you'll just have to accept that some people will express that it's okay for two people of the same gender to get married, or for a man to put his penis up another man's rectum.
If any sort of restriction is imposed on either party, for whatever reason, then freedom has been completely lost.
An attempt to give one party "more" freedom ends up resulting in a total loss of freedom for everyone.
Freedom is inherently impossible in any situation where there are restrictions, no matter how small they may be.
As I live in Arkansas I actually got around to reading the bill (HB 1228) this morning. Everything people are complaining about is complete FUD. It's really quite mundane... and LOTS of other states already have similar laws on the books. It _basically_ instructs the courts to take into consideration sincerely-held religious convictions in discrimination cases except where there is an impracticality in enforcing the laws without the state encroaching on them.
This does NOT mean that teh gheys will be denied service at restaurants.
It DOES mean that I may be spared legal consequences if I decline to build a gay porn website for somebody and am sued for discrimination.
Apparently I need more coffee. The last one should have been Buddhists, not Hindus.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I was just reading a city in Oklahoma enabled Sharia Law to make sure gays do not have rights so the city council can be re-elected.
If Obama did this they would be screaming murder and going to the white house with pitchforks and torches. Hypocrites.
http://saveie6.com/
Yet the implementation of this aspect of the 1st has very little relation to the wording in the amendment. "Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion." Absolutely nothing about the separation of church and state. Simply that congress shall not try to establish a state religion. or prohibit a religion.
Whereas some try to justify rules and regulations and out right bans on various firearms based on the Well regulated militia clause but there is not much ambiguity to the "The right of the people to keep and bear arms." is pretty straightforward and clear.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
So out of curiosity, are those signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse serve to anyone" legal? If they are, then why would they need to pass this law? If not, does a business have the right under ANY circumstance to refuse service to someone outside of where the law demands it (like a bartender refusing to serve an intoxicated customer)? Are businesses considered to be public and therefore must be open to everyone or are they considered private and open only to whomever the owner wants (like a private club)? I've always been curious about this
You won't find those exact words; however, you will find this:
If there was a state religion, or if religion were not required to be separate from the state, there would, indeed, be religious tests applicable.
Of course, the Constitution also still contains provisions on how to count slaves for purposes of allocating Congress.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
At some point your freedoms will clash with my freedoms. Who wins then, Tim?
For every person demanding that kids be taught that homosexuality is normal and natural and thus should be accepted by all (as proved by its persistence throughout history despite brutal efforts to suppress it), I'd like to submit that we - using the same criteria - teach that murder, rape, and war are LIKEWISE "normal" and "natural".
Oh wait, one is obviously "good", the other obviously "bad"? Some people might assert that homosexuality is biologically deviant and phylogenically a waste of resources, while war culls the weak.
(I'll just point out that even composing this post and the examples above was an intellectually challenging exercise, but the moment we don't TRY to understand the viewpoint of our ideological opposite - who likely has the same moral stance, just a different set of facts/priorities/filters - our arguments are bankrupt.)
Personally, I believe that racists, and homophobes, and sexists should be allowed to just do what they want, and be who they are, as long as they don't actually harm anyone. If they want to refuse service in their business, that's a commercial decision they can make, and can cheerfully live with the consequences of that choice - I mean, it's not like the internet would make it simple for the world to be informed of these choices, and the marketplace - the true democracy, with people casting votes they actually care about with their $ - can vote on whether it's anathema or ok.
-Styopa
You wouldn't be a God-fearing bigot if didn't constantly compare homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Hate to break it to you, but homosexuality is not a paraphilia any more than hetrosexuality is. It is not even a sexual practice.
You are entirely wrong. The Hobby Lobby ruling said nothing about the workers submitting to the religious beliefs of the company owners. The workers retain full access to all medical serviced they wish. For example they are free to use their own money to buy contraception and abortion, and to buy health insurance that covers contraception and abortion. The only "right" the lost was the "right" to have the employer buy them contraception. The workers certainly have a right to be compensated for their labour (and they are!) -- but are not "submitting to the religious beliefs of their employer" by being paid their salary in cash instead of in medical services.
The only abuse here is that salary paid in cash is taxable, while salary paid in medical insurance isn't. But that is a problem created by Congress, and the solution is to remove the loophole. Decoupling health insurance from employment would automatically solve the religious liberty problem (if each workers bought their own coverage, the employer's religious beliefs wouldn't be relevant) and would mean losing your job wouldn't automatically mean you lose your insurance..
If you think the Indiana RFRA gives a business the right to discriminate based on religion then test it. Refuse to serve "Christians" and see how that works out in the courts.
It all starts at 0
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
There are two completely different situations in TFA:
- Clerks work for the city / county, not the feds or the courts. If they have a problem with the rules, they can challenge them or quit. If someone else is offended by the rules, their problem is with the city / county, not the clerk. The Texas clowns want to lay their responsibility on someone who has no authority to deal with it and certainly isn't being paid enough to.
- People who run a business (like a bakery) should be absolutely free to refuse service to anyone, at any time, with or without giving a reason. It's not the government's business. If a bakery wants to make cakes for government functions, they follow the government's rules. If the public doesn't like it, the business changes their policy or closes. Period. (Ignoring all the ways the government can visit "unrelated" reprisals on uncooperative subjects.)
How can anyone argue against that? I'm reminded of the small southern town I grew up in. Lots of natural beauty, and lots of rich northerners who wanted to live there. Trouble was, most of them immediately joined or created every committee, etc, they could find, ran for office, and wrote to the newspapers trying to turn their new home into the same totalitarian northeastern sewer they were supposedly escaping. It's okay to know all the answers, but preserve me from the ones who want to impose their answers on everyone else.
Religious people have the right not to have their faith mocked...
Exactly where in US law does it say that one should be immune to mockery based on your religious choices? Rest assured that I fully plan to mock you and your invisible friend. I'll just won't deny your marriage license as well.
...by being forced to admit into their midst people that do not share their beliefs.
That is EXACTLY the excuse used by bigots to justify Jim Crow laws and other forms of discrimination. That's just a fancy way of saying "we don't want your kind here".
I'm curious, do you have any references as to which verses were change/removed to the NIV?
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.
This is completely mad! The separation of church and state is the *same thing* as not establishing a state religion. If you put up the Ten Commandments on a gigantic plaque outside City Hall, you are, de facto, establishing Christianity as the religion that the state endorses. (Judaism doesn't have the Ten Commandments, it has the Aseret Dibrayot, which means something rather different.)
Wasting your time. They have had the 2nd explained to them more often then a creationist has had evolution explained to them. They don't want to know.
You cannot educate 'willful ignorance'. It's a waste of time to try.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Is it hate disguised as religion? Let's see...
Leviticus 18 - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20 - "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Ouch. Not so much hate, now is it? Let's see more, shall we?
Jude 1:7 - "the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are stated to have been 'giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh,'"
Ouch. Again...not so much hate, now is it? Is there more?
Romans 1 - "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet"
Ouch. Wow...that's even in the New Testament.
Sorry, you're full of shit and hatred yourself. I, as a Christian, love others as my brother, but I do hate the sin, do not condone it, and don't believe that those that claim to be actively practicing gays are anything but hypocrites. There's no hatred there...I don't accept their chosen lifestyle because it's explicitly called out as a sin in the Bible. You're off bashing Christians in your own remarks in the same manner you accuse them of. Projection much?
In the end, though, the laws are redundant. The Constitution EXPLICITLY calls out the anti-discrimination laws as they have been framed as being forbidden to all branches of Government in the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Want to change this? Get it amended. Best of luck, you'll NEED it.
Let me guess. Straight white male?
[FUCK BETA]
to anyone. You have probably seen these signs in restaurants and other businesses. But in today's world, can a business owner really refuse to serve someone? The answer is it depends.
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees: "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.". The Americans with Disabilities Act extends this to include people with disabilities. So currently, federal law does not extend these rights to sexual preference.
Some states, such as California, have extended the Civil rights act to include sexual preference. It passed something called the Unruh Civil Rights Act which makes it illegal to discriminate based on sexual preference and what it calls "unconventional dress". Other states have done similar things.
The point here is that currently it is a State's rights issue, not a Federal issue. So states are free to adopt the Federal Civil Rights Act as is or they can extend it to include other things, like California has done.
What Tim Cook and others are trying to do is have it become a Federal issue so that the Federal Civil Rights Act is amended to include sexual preference. Much like gay marriage proponents are attempting to do. Then states will be powerless to invoke their own individual standards.
We can debate whether or not it is the right thing to do but at the heart of it is a Federal vs. States rights struggle.
I can't believe how many people are can't wrap their heads around businesses being able to choose their own customers. Being a 'jerk' is a moral offense and should not a legal one on par with robbery or murder. People already are allowed to be jerks for a million other reasons, why is orientation so special? If the government needs to go after bakers not baking a cake for someone why not also jail and fines for adultery or cutting in line?
The correct balance is probably to allow it for sole proprietorships but not parternships or corporations. That way individuals aren't forced to violate their conscience while groups are required to conform to societal norms. If Joe's lawnmower service center or Sally's cake shop is discriminatory it's probably not a big deal in the grand scheme of things (distasteful as it may be to some), but if you have the same problem with Toro or Albertsons it's a major issue. This makes both sides unhappy, so it's likely the best compromise solution.
Now *that's* strange... but yep. I see *zero* difference between religious discrimination based on gender and racial discrimination... oh, except that the former means you need to pull down your pants so they can decide whether or not to discriminate against you.
And trolls, it doesn't matter what sex you really want to get laid by, deep down inside, you *still* won't get laid by anyone.
mark
Private businesses are not public accommodations.
But that's exactly what they are, if they do business with the public. When you incorporate a business, the government grants you special rights, like being able to protect your personal assets from the liabilities of your business, and having access to a stable legal system to enforce the contracts that you make. In return, you have certain responsibilities about how you conduct your business; e.g., things covered by consumer protection laws, the way you keep your accounts, and not discriminating against classes of customers and employees out of your own bigotry. You want the advantages and protections of an incorporated business without having to follow the rules of a civilized society? Tough shit.
I just finished Reza Aslan's "Jesus the Zealot," and much was said about the Roman occupation, and the Levite collaborators, even in the sanitized gospels that were whitewashed for a Roman audience.
"Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's," is actually a direct challenge to throw the Romans out of Judea, a statement made within the Court of the Gentiles on the temple grounds. Tearing down and rebuilding the temple in three days, as a challenge to the high priest Caiaphas, also directly threatened the Roman order.
The Roman governors of Judea were alternately viciously efficient or incompetent, and a spirit of rebellion reached a crescendo after the crucifixion, when Judea was free from Roman rule for four years, then crushed by the armies of Vespasian and his son Titus, who utterly destroyed Jerusalem.
Should salesforce.com be forced by law to do business in Indiana? Why is it permissible for salesforce.com to discriminate against Indiana based on the CEO's beliefs?
...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?
You're discriminating against Apple based on your beliefs. If discriminating based on one's beliefs is impermissible, you should be forced to buy iPhones. I hope you're prepared to pay a huge fine or go to jail or be forced out of your job or property by government (or government court-supported) bullying.
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.
A lot of other state have that in law have in *addition* ban on discrimination. Example : illinois they do indeed have a freedom fo religion act, but at the same time they have a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. And as far as i can tell, when both conflict, the ban would take precedence.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Ah the old show me the wording argument. How tired.
You can't have freedom of religion if the state itself is religious. If the state itself is Baptist there is no longer any freedom to be anything other that Baptist because the state will act as an arm of the Baptist church in passing and enforcing laws. And more importantly as the religious often like to point out Atheism is a belief and for that atheist to have freedom of religion he cannot be subjected to religiously inspired action by his government. This is a recognized principle that the supreme court has upheld numerous times.
The state itself must be free of religious motivation and action, without that there can be no freedom of religion. Any law or action that's driven solely by religion is unconstitutional. This is why laws allowing only nativity scenes on public property are illegal but laws allowing religious displays of any kind on public property are fine.
As with all our rights the devil's in the details. And you simply can't have true freedom of religion if the government is acting as the arm of a church. A freedom of religion that says you are only free to be baptist or X version of Christian isn't freedom of religion.
Bestiality is illegal
Cow fisting by a vet excluded of course.
Just because I don't tolerate something does not mean I think that a law prohibiting that something is a good idea. On several occasions I have asked people (white people, and I'm white) to stop using the N word in my presence. But a law prohibiting that would be a violation of their (idiotic & racist) free speech and i would be against it.
To make it more plain. On average the country pays more to insurance companies that they are provided in medical services... otherwise the insurance companies would go out of business.
So, yes currently the government compels me to do business with a company that I don't want to
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
But they see no harm in forcing a religious person to choose between being faithful to God and making their living.
Exactly how is a religious person being harmed here? Harmed in a tangible way that we both can agree is real. A religious person claiming it is a "sin" for them to make a wedding cake for a gay couple is a mental block in their own head. This is nothing more than an attempt to justify a bigoted fear response. This sort of bogus argument is why we have separation of church and state in the first place. Economic transactions are the domain of the state and personal religious preferences should have NO bearing on them at all. Ever.
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.
A religious person's imaginary rules for themselves are not and never should become my problem. If they want to live their life putting crazy imaginary restrictions on what they are ok with doing, that's their problem. They have NO right to make it my problem. I don't follow their religious law and I your argument is basically the same argument used to justify abominations like Jim Crow laws.
There is actually a really simple solution to all of this. The biggest complaint I have with all this is not that Gay people want to be legally joined. It is that the government has given special legal status and rights to a religious ceremony, marriage.
The best thing the country can do is pass a law that converts all marriages to civil unions, and grants all legal rights formally granted to marriages, to civil unions, and then remove those rights from marriage. Marriage goes back to being a religious ceremony with no legal status or rights like it should be.
Then religious people no longer have a complaint about marriage being redefined and gay people get all the legal rights they want. We can define Civil union however we want because religion is no longer involved.
Just my 2 cents
P.S. I am Christian
A government is different from a private company. It's sad that I have to point that out. A private business that chooses to be assholes will not stay in business for long unless they happen to be located in a very bigoted part o the world.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
I see a lot of people throwing around words like "bigot" and "hate" on here. The thing is that the people displaying the most hate and bigotry appear to be those accusing people of believe of having those traits. Believe that something is wrong does not mean the person with that believe hates the person that commits that act.
I will start a new religion, where upon "dark" and "light" days will alternate. As a member, you will be obliged only to serve somebody of darker skin or lighter skin, depending on the day, all others will be turned away.
For example, If Tuesday is a "dark" day, you only are allowed to do business with or assist people with darker skin. The next day, you will only do business with those of a lighter skin shade.
Those without skin, or matching your own skin color are not to be dealt with, ever, as it is sinful.
Religious freedom!
The logic does not follow. Homosexuality is conduct between consenting adults; children and animals cannot, by their very nature, grant consent.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Past supporters of RFRA acts include Barack Obama (who voted for one as Illinois State Senator) and Bill Clinton (who signed one into law as President). So Tim Cook's position is not in the political mainstream and in fact it is even outside the liberal Democrat mainstream. The news here is Tim Cook inappropriately dragging Apple into a political war to endorse his own radical politics, not anything going on in Indiana.
Cooks' statements are also not based on any actual facts. See background on RFRA here.
Not long ago Apple stood for fanatical devotion to great design. Now it stands for tasteless bling and Tim Cook's political agenda. We all know the heartbreaking history of that company. It is made even sadder by Cook's failure to stay true to the vision.
from:
Apple: Insanely great design.
to:
Apple: Indiana is a bunch of Anti-homosexual Christian Bigots.
Tim Cook is not qualified to lead Apple. Not because he is gay (nothing wrong with that in my opinion) but because he is ruining the corporate image by putting his personal politics ahead of Apple's interests. If any other employee at Apple used the Apple name to endorse his own personal political views, that employee wold be fired. The same policy should apply to Cook.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
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?
You can afford to pay any amount of medical expenses (for example, major heart surgery, serious trauma surgery etc) with cash on hand?
It's wager that you're something of an edge case.
Otherwise, I call bullshit on insurance "not providing anything [you] can't provide on your own".
Or do you mean your parents will pay?
Or are you just monumentally stupid enough to simply roll the dice daily by not having insurance and thinking you couldn't possibly get sick or be injured? and consider that a better position than actually having insurance (or access to universal healthcare if you live in any of the other developed nations on earth)?
Great, so we don't need affirmative action anymore, right?
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".
Religious people have the right not to have their faith mocked...
Oh really? Perhaps you could provide a citation of the law granting this so-called "right"?
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
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Idiot much? Lol?
You have to read as far as the ninth amendment:
Other rights that are exclusively a matter of informed, personal and consensual choice, are obviously covered. Any law -- or private action -- that denies such rights is unconstitutional or simply wrongheaded.
Yes, I know there are many such laws and attitudes. WRT the laws, we had laws implementing slavery and denial of woman's right to vote (among many others), and we managed to figure out those were asshole positions to take. So there's considerable highly visible precedent for us correcting our course when ideas like yours manage to turn into law and acting out.
Hopefully, eventually we'll have legislators -- probably by accident -- that will be pro liberty instead of these lace-panty, pearl-clutching corporate shills we have now. As far as the attitudes go, we can't fix stupid. Yet. But genetics is coming right along, there's hope there, too.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So is Apple going to close its South Asia headquarters in Singapore, where homosexuality is a felony punishable by 2 years in prison?
Or do they not actually care about civil rights and are just trying to hook onto their customer base's current "cause of the week" in a cynical attempt to get good PR?
By looking at who owns the banks and big corps I can see a lot of Goys and Gentiles being denied services.
Did I miss something? Haven't we been all through this before? Did the Civil Rights Act of 1964 just vanish? It's pretty clear that Federal Law prohibits discrimination. Trying to dress up discrimination as Religious Freedom is farcical.
That would be true, if Sexual Orientation was a "Protected Class" under the 14th Amendment (or a similar State Statute/Constitutional Amendment); but, at the Federal Level, and at the Indiana State Level, that is not the case.
In fact, if Indiana would add Sexual Orientation to its State-Constitutional version of the 14th Amendment (don't have time to look it up), like Michigan apparently did, there wouldn't be this kerfluffle.
But it didn't. And, as long as Mike Pence is in the Governor's office, it won't. He made that abundantly clear yesterday on This Week.
I rarely see tolerance in any form from the left.. Their mantra is always about how some other group not on their whitelist is oppressing some group that is.
A church and its community should not be required to accept people who do not comply with its doctrine for the same reason gay people should not be required to associate with them or live by said doctrine. Both populations should tolerate the liberty the other has because it protects the rights of both. This is part of the point of "Liberty and justice for ALL" (not just non white non straight non males). I think people in general need to realize they're not going to be welcome everywhere and not everyone is going to like them.
For me, the line is drawn where some group uses the state to force their lifestyle/belief on others
So, whites-only cafes were ok after all?
Firsta than all, The STATE isn't made to shape the people's mind or believes, the same way that People Believes shouldnt shape the states laws. State purpose is to provide a common place where N different character individuals, etc can LIVE IN PEACE, to everybody, First instace o rule of an state is RESPECT TO INDIVIDUAL NATURAL RIGTHS ITS THE BASIS OF THE PEACE. On the other way, communities here pledges for the state to rule on things arent part of an secular state: Religious Matters. Everithing started when Married Catholics (just to name an religion) pledged for an "in men-laws marriage", contaminating the SECULAR STATE creating something that actually doesnt exist ( 'almost every religion states that an marriage in men-laws actually doesnt exist, since the marriage is an religious ceremony and being whife and husband its an faith condition') so those Married Catholics got what they want, a way to "marry" again, on which actually its an civilian contract, since almost no importatn religion consider valid ot true an "in men-laws marriage". So Cook (here representing what its "nick"-named the Gay Lobby), asked for somthing an true and perfect SECULAR STATE souldnt recognize: MARRIAGE, an true SECULAR state doesnt name an private contract with something extracted form an Cult or Religion, so If the Gay Lobby wants really all the advantages (legal, practical and social) the wrongly named "in men-laws marriage", they first must pledge to removal to all these Cohabitation Contract (what actually is) the nick "marriage", while retaining all the rigths and restrictions foreseen on such Cohabitation Contracts. The same way, Religous communities, should be considered an Club, not special groups, and in no way belonging or not to such community should allow any kind of discrimination from pro-gay, atheist, other religious group, and the state it self, and every individual should have warrant that its religuos practice will be respected while its kept inside the areas where such religion community acorded to practice it's belief. So an Gay dont have rigth to irrumpe an Catholic ceremony asking for gay marriage or chalenging the catholics with gay mods, its inaceptable. the same Catholics goups dont have right to irrumpe inside an Gay Pub, and without invite and preach "all the gays are doomed to hell" or things such. It's wrong on public space some law protect discrimination, the same is wrong individuals ask for laws protecting ofense to others. (this its true on both directions). So, no Gay Marriage un less its only an religious marriage and under some religion with this kind of marriage (non christian, jewish, islamist allows gay to marry and its very explicit), so gay are banned to ask for religious marriage on religions that don't allow it, no matter the *equity* question, marriage its an religious institution not an secular one. And so Cohabitation Contracts (incorrectly named Marriage) should be named Marriage (this is an religious ceremony), and also shoulnd be limited by religious belief and be just another contract, among Men an Women, two men, two women, many men and a woman, many woman and a men, whatever not restricted by religious belief but acordingly not named Marriage since an TRUE AND PERFECT SECULAR STATE DONT HAVE MARRIAGE AS NAME FOR WHAT ACTUALLY ITS AN COHABITATION CONTRACT. Everithing its possible, with mutual respect as basis, the problem here is that an cohabitatin contract isnt for some gays what actually interest for they (all the benefits of the in-men law's marriage) but to challenge the hetherosexual community with the "marriage" word; the same way Anti-Gay groups believe that banning certain rigths to Gays will drop the gay population or silence it, TWO WRONGS DONT MAKE AN RIGTH. Its my opinion.
Eddie Murphy has had a checkered movie history. For every Norbit, there's the scene from Dreamgirls where he won (rightfully) an Academy Award for a single look.
Now about Tyler Perry though....
Why not? There are plenty of clubs today that cater to various cultures and lifestyles, right? There are gay clubs? Irish taverns? Gay parades? The NAACP?
The difference there is that apart from #2, those are all choices that someone makes.
that's all just a legally palatable cover for their real motivation: Feeling normal.
Well, that, and they'd kinda like to not be fired from their job because they are gay, beaten (sometimes to death) because they are gay, not be able to adopt because they are gay, be able to inherit from their life partner and be able to make and-of-life decisions for their life partner, etc, etc, etc. But sure. feeling normal is way more important than all that.
So yeah, my freedom of religious expression is protected by the Bill of Rights, while your "choice" to like the same sex isn't.
But at the same time, your right to throw your fist ends where my nose begins. That's where legal technicalities get interesting.
But let's look at it from a different point of view, let's say that I own a large restaurant with attached back room that I will let out to various parties. As a private citizen, do I have the right to not let to the First Church of the Unredeemed? Am I really a private citizen at this point, or am I company doing business with the public? Am I allowed to discriminate against your religion? If not, why not? The constitution restricts what the government can do, not what I (or my business) can do.
The bottom line though is, people wanting to discriminate against gays doing normal things like hold weddings or lease an apartment are on the wrong side of history. In 50 years discriminating against gays will be as repugnant as discriminating against blacks today.
Will all anti-gay attitudes be wiped out? No. People are people. Just as there are open racists today, there will be open anti-gays in 50 years, but the majority will look down on the bigots.
Anyone can claim to Christian.
Jesus stated: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your might, AND Love your neighbor as yourself"
If you claim to be a Christian, and can't love those who you believe to be are "lost" (or bake them a cake), you may as well claim to be a Super Sayijin.. as both claims are pretty farfetched.
Awesome!
Who has lobbied for this? What businesses, or churches, are pushing for this?
My religion says that anyone who enters my business is subject to sharia law. I should move to Indiana now!
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.
I'm not so sure.
There could be an argument that many homosexuals are suffering from a form of sexual addiction and therefore they cannot appropriately consent to sex (because of diminished responsibility due to their addiction).
Also theres plenty of evidence that interspecies sexual relations can occur with consent and it certainly occurs quite a lot in nature (there are LOTS of hybrids out there, in the wild).
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Let's count the number of each of these which prohibit nonmembers from attending or participating... Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero.
So, what was your point, exactly?
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
so one is a choice and one is a disease?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Disclosure : I'm really hating this law since it seems ( and I don't know exactly ) that it's an easy way to discriminate.
My question is: ( more like an extreme thought exercise )
I have create a faith that does not like fat people, can I open a restaurant and only admit thin people ?
based on everything I have read so far, even this is acceptable under this rule ( so to be law )
if you see me, smile and say hello.
Also, as the Gay lobby has pointed out time and again, sexual orientation is genetic. These people can't help that they are attracted to 12 year old boys, it's who they are.
Homosexuality != Pedophelia
Die in a fire, troll.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
If Joe's lawnmower service center or Sally's cake shop is discriminatory it's probably not a big deal in the grand scheme of things (distasteful as it may be to some), but if you have the same problem with Toro or Albertsons it's a major issue.
There are many flavors of "Religious Freedom Law,"but at least the Indiana law applies to the employees as well as the businesses. So, Joe's lawnmower service may refuse people on the basis of religion at the policy level, but Joe, the employee of Starbuck's, may also refuse to serve people on the basis of his personal beliefs. The law is intended to prevent Starbuck's from firing Joe for his expression of personal religious freedom.
Go read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah again.
The story is about how a group of men were coming to Lot's house to rape the visitors. As the host, it was Lot's job to protect them, and he even offered his daughter up for rape to protect his guests.
Now, find a story about two people of the same sex being in a committed loving relationship and show me where it is condemned.
Homosexuality in the Bible was always related to violence or the worship of other gods. There is not a reference to the type of homosexuality that exists today, so it is very hard to get a Biblical case, pro or con.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
Easy. Just put a narrow door on your restaurant and the fact people won't be able to get in.
Simples
What is wrong with you people (no, not you brain-dead basement dwellers - you, the majority of your countrymen and the policymakers).
You need to be prevented from travelling overseas or having any influence on world events until you've achieved civilization according to a modern definition of the word. Warning: this probably means getting decent healthcare too. ie.Healthcare with a primary goal of *drumroll* providing health (omg!) to your population rather than as a secondary but necessary expense of profiting from them.
Really, I'm so sick of hearing USA USA USA trumpeted from every fucking orifice. Fix your shit. Fix the imbalances in your society and maybe things will start to heal.
Requiem for the American Dream
Since you haven't actually read the first amendment to the constitution, let me break it down for you:
.. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So there is "freedom of speech" right in the Amendment. Right next to the prohibition on congress to pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, Which is right next to the prohibition of Congress to create a Federal Government's officially established religion(i.e. a state religion). No where does it separate the state from being effected by religion. In fact the way the courts have ruled that recognition of any religion by any governmental agent, is a defacto establishment of atheism as a state religion.
As for things grownups understand; they understand the difference between violence which is not protected and being an asshole, which is protected by the aforementioned freedom of speech. So your law preventing someone from being an asshole to people they don't like is oppressing not only their religious rights but their speech rights as well. Here is a law professor agreeing that racist speech is protected speech, i.e. being an asshole to people.
[...] just get keep your barbaric traditions from public spaces you worthless piece of ignorant scum
Dare to say that to a Muslim? If yes I am with you, else you are just a hypocrite and a coward.
But I will contend the state is become atheistic. So the state is acting on behalf of atheists constantly and it is disadvantaging all other religions.
This is because while courts do in fact acknowledge that Atheism is a religion, they are applying a Separation of Church and State doctrine to prevent any religion or mention of God from the state.
And no God is Atheism.
Thus my problem with the courts ruling based on a nonexistent separation of church and state in the constitution rather than the clear freedom of religious express and prohibition of the establishment of a state religion(which the courts have established defacto instead of dejure, re atheism.)
Try to get your float promoting Gay Therapy or Traditional Marriage into a Gay Pride Parade.
Groups discriminate all the time. You tolerate some because you agree with them.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
If Tim Cook is so bloody interested in equality, he can give to the poor everything he is paid.
The US was founded on justice, equality before the law . All other forms of equality forced by law are a swindle; they are injustice.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
No where does it separate the state from being effected by religion.
Are ye daft, son? That's exactly what it says: religion cannot become the basis for law. It is literally impossible for my religion to write laws without prohibiting your free exercise thereof; that's what laws do.
In fact the way the courts have ruled that recognition of any religion by any governmental agent, is a defacto establishment of atheism as a state religion.
IHBT. Sigh. I hope you're trolling anyway, because I'd hate to think that an adult could pack that much accidental ignorance into a single sentence. No courts have ruled that way, and atheism cannot be a religion (any more than my lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy establishes me as an "aTooth-Fairyist").
Here is a law professor agreeing that racist speech is protected speech, i.e. being an asshole to people.
You can say asshole things to people, but there are enumerated acts of assholery that are explicitly illegal. You have the freedom of speech, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says it ends at the cash register.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Again, you fail to read. I said it is not up to the state to define marriage, it is up to religion. I did not state any specific religion, or even any specific point of view. I merely state that it is up to the religions to define a religious ceremony, not the state.
I don't particularly care what an illiterate AC says about me, but at least learn to read, it is important in life.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Your sig is evil...
I agree on the rape angle, but it was implied that the men of the city enjoyed sodomy, and it was at least partially why the cities were destroyed. It is however very difficult to untangle, as it could be as much about dishonoring guests as it was about the attempt at forceful sodomy with the male angelic guests.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
These fundamentalist Christians are dirty perverts. They spend way too much time thinking about what other people are doing in the privacy of their own homes, and then for some reason they want to get involved by going into those bedrooms and playing dominator/dominatrix and telling people what to do while they're having sex.
Look, I agree that you shouldn't have to bake a cake that specifically celebrates spanking. But if a couple into spanking came into your store and asked for one of your generic cake designs, I do not believe you should be able to refuse them service.
Similarly, I don't believe gays should be refused a generic wedding cake.
No. They're not discriminating against gays. They won't cater for anyone on a Friday and they won't cater a pig roast for anyone.
If they refuse to cater a gay wedding with Halal food on a Sunday afternoon, then yes... that's discrimination.
I thought of that first. it's a violation of handicap people ( wheel chair laws )
most of the USA. door width has to be 36 inches in width.
if you see me, smile and say hello.
Abuse is a matter of perspective. Anyone can claim any action (or inaction) is a form of abuse.
I wish I could paste a jpg into this.
Anyhow it says "Your rights end where my feelings begin"
Many people affect 'offence' just to get some political capital.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Yes, the law be equitable only in this situation:
You are a prostitute, and are heterosexual. Somebody wishes to engage your services. You say no, because you don't swing that way...
Otherwise, frankly, what happens in my or anyone else's bedroom is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, because it doesn't involve you. Also, if your religion regards their relationship as a sin, I suggest you stop eating shellfish, working on a Sunday, and any gazillion things that are all old testament and have nothing to do with being "Christian" (the religion that supposedly follows a guy who basically preached love and acceptance, ya know).
...isn't this the guy whose products are built by labor force that is for all intents and purposes, slaves?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
IHBT. Sigh. I hope you're trolling anyway, because I'd hate to think that an adult could pack that much accidental ignorance into a single sentence. No courts have ruled that way, and atheism cannot be a religion (any more than my lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy establishes me as an "aTooth-Fairyist").
KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY, 7th Circuit, rules Atheism is a Religion.
But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).
Id. at 52-53, 105 S.Ct. 2479. In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.
So tell me about this "aTooth-Fairyist" religion of yours. Are you sure you're not the ignorant one here?
Sure you can 'participate' if you're willing to participate in your own discrimination..this esp applies to the NAACP which really is no better than the KKK.
It has the potential to be a little worse than that.
Because of its character-based nature, any effort to figure out who's gay is going to go over about as well as finding the "Communists" did during the HUAC days. If business owners really care about keeping gays out of their Christian establishments, we'll find out pretty quickly when perfectly straight people start getting kicked out for simply having lunch with their friends.
Truthfully though I don't think it'll come to that. Already restaurants and other establishments are either putting up pro LGBT stickers or doing nothing different. I'm sure we'll have the odd ball BBQ shack in the woods show up in the news from time to time, but I'm beginning to doubt that these bills are anything more than for show. Republicans are saying, "Look, we get it! We're Tea Party. We're the new kind of conservative!", in an effort to reinvigorate the base.
If they really wanted to push gays out of society, they have a ready-made method for that, which they use on convicted sex offenders. Maybe we should reserve our freak-out for when they try to pass new sodomy laws.
Why not tell me which religion it is that disallows talking to gays, backing cupcakes for gay weddings, and so forth? There certainly is no backing for this in the predominant religion of Indiana. What religious beliefs then are being protected here? No one is being asked to commit any sins. The first ammendment rights of free expression of religion and free speech are not given additional protections by this bill and were not in any danger without this bill.
You mean the case where the court ruled very narrowly that atheism should be afforded the same legal respect as religions when ensuring the rights of people holding those opinions? You would be hard pressed to choose a case less helpful to your viewpoint.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Especially the Congressional Black Caucus
I've never heard a convincing argument for their position.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Would the law also apply if Joe declares that he can only serve people that are satanists (due to his religion)? If it does I can see shops becoming quite a good jobs for lazy people - "My religion prevents me from serving you because you are human, sorry."
Surely the fair thing to do is to let every other bigoted group ban who they want.
So what does your choice with religious expression have to do with their choice of a private lifestyle that doesn't affect you in any way? Show me the religious texts your religion has that disallows making cupcakes for a gay weddings. Now there are religious texts that would support not doing commerce with any outsiders, but those relatively rare and small sects generally don't do business with the public and they were not high on the list of supporters for this bill.
This is most certainly not a Christian rights issue in any way. There may be scriptures that seem strongly to forbid homosexual activity, but there are also scripture sthat are against remarriage after divorce, premarital sex even by straight people, allowing women to teach during church services, and so forth. Yet this "religious rights" bill did not gain steam before when atheists or Hindus wanted to buy a wedding cake from a Christian baker, or for a racially mixed couple, or if the bride was previously divorced, or an unmarried couple wanted to buy a loaf of bread, etc. No, this issue showed up in response to gay marriage being legalized.
There is nothing whatsoever in this bill that protects actual religious freedoms.
"The Aristocrats!"
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Joe, the employee of Starbuck's, may also refuse to serve people on the basis of his personal beliefs. The law is intended to prevent Starbuck's from firing Joe for his expression of personal religious freedom.
That sounds like an employment nightmare and a legal minefield. I doubt this was the intent and it doesn't sound like a good idea.
But where are there any religious beliefs in any mainstream religion that forbid an employee of Joe's lawnmower service to refuse to fix a lawnmower of a gay person, or that of an atheist, communist, etc.? What "on the basis of religion" is this? It most certainly is not Christianity.
Now what if the coffee shop clerk (my religions prevents me from calling them "baristas") is harming business by giving a religious test to everyone who makes an order, so that he only serves those with the proper belief system (no gays or lawyers). Should that employee be fired or reassigned to floor mopping duties, without that being a violation of their religious expression of freedom?
MBLA is an organization advocating for a very harmful act to be made legal. There's no way to equate that with a normal advocacy group.
But if it were me in the PR firm, I would refuse but not on religious grounds. There is nothing here about free expression of religion, that's just being used an excuse to be bigoted towards gay, a knee jerk response created to the legalization of gay marriages. There is nothing in any of my religious texts that says I must refuse service to certain groups of people. On the contrary, the religious texts I've read point in the opposite direction, and the founders associated with known and despised sinners.
If an individual has a religious objection to doing something... who is anyone to say they have to do that thing?
Leave people alone.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I always order out.
However under the law as it is written, I think I would lose any lawsuit if the restaurant refused to serve me. All the restaurant has to do is declare to the court that giving me service me would violate a religious belief of either the owners or anyone working there.
Good for you, though you'll soon find out that your simple act of tolerance will be deemed offensive by the majority of your clientele. Bye-bye business.
It is supposedly written in crude Greek by a student of Paul.
Mark 11:27 clearly has Jesus in the temple with a crowd of his followers, delivering this statement in 12:13, in full view of the centurions of the Antonia fortress which the Romans had physically attached to the temple walls. In order to gain access to the Court of the Gentiles, Jesus would have walked beneath the Roman eagles that had been affixed to the entrances of the temple by Herod (crowned king of Judea by Rome).
The priestly vestments and tools were kept in the Antonia fortress, and given to the high priest only when required.
Rome owned Jerusalem and greater Judea, and expressed no hesitation in demonstrating this fact.
Also, bear in mind that Nazereth was a small town near the larger city of Sepphoris, where Jesus likely worked as a carpenter. Sepphoris was burned to the ground by the Romans in an earlier revolt.
It is highly unlikely that Jesus was ambivalent to the Roman occupation of Judea.
However, if you want to change the way you are treated, it's probably the only way.
Except we've decided as a country that there are certain ways it's not OK to be an asshole, particularly when it's because the other person is black, female, Muslim, etc. I did not advocate for restricting free speech. I'm advocating for what law already says regarding other minority classes: feel free to speak your mind, but you shouldn't get to act against gay people any more than you're allowed to act against black people.
I'm dyed-in-the-wool small-l libertarian (and a registered large-L), but I'm horrified at the idea of passing laws to explicitly protect the "right" to discriminate against minorities. "First they came ..." and all that; we shouldn't be looking for new and creative ways to crap on our neighbors.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
First off, selling a wedding cake to a gay couple has nothing to do with accepting gay marriage. No one else going in to buy a cake has to pass a test before being allowed to buy one. If someone came in and wanted a wedding cake for their two cats (so they could stop living in cat sin together), is the baker going to refuse on the grounds that cats can not be married in the eyes of the church, or is the baker just going to laugh and humor the kooky cat lady? Is the baker being a hypocrite for refusing service only to gay customers while accepting anyone else?
Second, let's say hypothetically that this is a Christian church, there is no religious edict or teaching against selling a wedding cake to a gay couple, so there is no religious freedom being suppressed here. The baker is not being forced to officiate at a gay marriage, not being forced to engage in any gay activities, not being forced to sin in any way whatsoever.
What is happening is that some groups can not keep distinct their religious beliefs from their political beliefs and their cultural beliefs. They're as mad as hell at gay marriage being legalized so that they're using a knee-jerk reaction against it and falsely claiming it is about their own religious beliefs being violated.
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.
Finland's official Pravda^W^Wleading newspaper had an article on this particularly American issue. The main thesis is that you guys have a lot of freedom to offend and beat up each other, because any government intervention would go against the natural freedom of free men to do unto each other as they like. Of course, the follow-up is reduced freedom for individuals in lots of ways. You guys have more freedom than us in certain ways, but as a result you have less freedom in some other ways. It's hard to say which way is right, but it sure sounds a lot like BSD vs. GNU.
Personally, I'm in for more freedom in some areas. Finland officially switched from the Eastern Bloc into the EU 20 years ago, but I'm yet to see the full effects.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
The only way that can happen is to completely tamp out any social mores that say that being gay is wrong.
The belief that being gay is wrong is just a social belief. No scientific proof. There are hundreds of species that do the same-sex thing. Heck, when a dog is horny, he'll hump anything of any sex or species that he can get his paws around. If you choose to be offended by what most people feel is normal behavior, you might have a problem. Part of that is probably from the realization that you're no longer in the majority.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
While I am surely against discrimination, there is a place for law, and a place to let the market handle itself. We already have laws to address discrimination, so the law being discussed is something else. For example if you refuse to sell a tire from your shelf to "one of those" you will be sued, and rightfully so. Similarly, if you refuse to hire "one of those" or fire a person because they are "one of those" you will be sued, and again rightfully so. These are good laws, and should remain on the books. (Pardon the generalization, "one of those" was shorter than the long list of potential discrimination targets, no offense was intended.)
Considering that we already have laws, and the new law is not overruling those, we should ask what the new law was supposed to cover (go ahead and read the short history on this, I have). It is to cover a service industry having the right to refuse specific customized services and was exactly the result of a gay couple suing a bakery that refused to customize a cake they way the couple wanted. Note that this is not some off the shelf item that the baker refused to sell, it was not a job applicant that was refused, it was a specific modification that someone wanted that was refused.
If you answer no to the question in my subject, then why do you care about a law forcing a service to make you something the way you want it? Is this not a place for normal marketing pressure to make the correction if and where necessary? If a bakery refuses to make something you want, don't shop at that bakery? A different bakery willing to do your custom work will be happy to make the money. Good service distinguished from bad is exactly the thing that makes successes and failures in the "Services industry". If there are no other bakeries worth a damn in your area, start your own and cash in! That is what the "American Spirit" is all about.
I think the law as written was vague enough to be poor. Better written, it would have still resulted in some protest but not nearly as justified.
I see this in line with the huge amount funding and campaigns that went into making all bars and restaurants "no smoking". No law ever forced any of those businesses to support smokers, and a savvy entrepreneur could have made a mint on "no smoking" clubs and restaurants. Not that smoking is good (though it's legal), but the legislation forcing a service to behave a certain way breaks normal competition. The market can't dictate success, the Government does. It is too easy for this type of law to end up on a slippery slope.
Whether or not you believe it was "stupid" there are additional costs associated with customizing services, some are potentially long term. If the bakery was in a highly religious area and accepted the job of customizing the cake how much business would they lose? If they are in an area with a high population of LGBT, how much would they gain? Those are factors a service business needs to weigh. Even if in someone's opinion it's stupid not to do the extra, how many people in the world have a religion? I'll give you a hint, the majority does. Again, this is not refusing to sell an off the shelf product which resulted in a successful lawsuit. It was the refusal to customize a product that resulted in the successful lawsuit.
To make some comparative analogies: Should the Jewish or Muslim person be able sue the butcher for having pork on it's shelf, or should the market dictate that a butcher shop in a predominantly Jewish or Muslim area not carry pork? How about the atheist that lives in the same neighborhood, can they sue? Can the gay male sue the topless bar for not having male performers? Can the lesbian woman sue Chip&Dales for not having female performers? This is the precedent that was set with the successful bakery suit, unfortunately. We can't put that Jeanie back in the bottle, so I believe additional legislation is surely needed.
As I indirectly stated numerous times, the "Services Industry" is not the same as other businesses. The commodity is the personalization, not just fixed object cost. Society generates the normals with financial support for good choices, and gets rid of bad the same way.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
That country is fucked up.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Moving the goalpost I see. From "No courts have ruled that way" I found that the 7th circuit did in fact rule that way, and they based it on a Supreme Court Ruling as well(that would be the second quote). So I said that courts recognize that Atheism is a religion. The courts agree.
My viewpoint is that the government should not favor one religion over another religion. I, like the courts, have a broad construction of what a religion is. This after all being a legal argument.
You think that theistic religions should be disadvantaged, and that Atheism and Secular Humanism should be advantaged in government, to protect that separation of church and state, changing their definition to suit your argument. Then you think that no law should be based on religious belief; when in fact all law is.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't protects against all kinds of offense. It doesn't protect based on sexual orientation. And that is what the nexus of this Indiana law is about. So no bullshit about that ending action at the cash register. That's false.
I'm done with this goal post moving and your rhetoric. If you want to come back with some logic and facts have at it, but quit calling me a liar when you don't have a clue what the fuck your talking about.
What a crock. The federal law, and the states that passed similar laws, ban discrimination against LGBT. Indiana doesn't, which makes the law quite different in its' effects. You know it's bad when even Fox News is pointing out your lies about your anti-LGBT law.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
"Separation of church and state", as a specific quote or concept, is nowhere in the founding legal documents of the United States.
It was no less than Thomas Jefferson who said:
Next, your strawman:
It's use did not create prohibition against religious expression.
Correct. Still doesn't. You're legally entitled to say "blacks are of the devil" (or whites for that matter). Go ahead! No government agency will stop you. However, you're not allowed to discriminate based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce (court-upheld interpretation: pretty much anywhere).
No one believes that any of our rights are unlimited. You can speak your opinion, but you can't yell fire in a theater. You can bear arms, but don't expect to own a nuclear bomb. You can sincerely believe that whites are a superior species to blacks, but you don't get to own, kill, intimidate, lynch, or otherwise harm a black guy, regardless of your vile beliefs. This isn't something I'm making up out of whole cloth, but well-established and widely accepted interpretation of Federal law.
Documents which govern the FEDERAL government do not necessarily apply to State or Local governments.
Read your Constitution, son. The 14th amendment says:
This codified previous Constitutional supremacy thoughts by explicitly stating that States don't get to write laws violating the Constitution or selectively affording privileges to one group and not another.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
We have to start from the premise that said individual may well not be able to afford these options.
Then, we pay for the same reason that we as group pay for other things that benefit society over the long term, like roads, fire departments, public education, defense, sewers, sidewalks, dikes, rain gutters. We know certain needs are going to come up, and/or certain events will actually happen, so we prepare for them in some way that optimizes the outcome.
Unwanted children are very often a serious burden both on society at large, and often upon the parents, and often even to themselves. The workforce is diminished and damaged, and people grow up under conditions that start out with a fairly strong negative impetus.
We benefit directly by stronger parent-child relations; by prepared parents as opposed to "oh crap, I/we didn't plan on THIS!" parents; By better educated and happier citizens.
It's the future we're investing in. That's one of the best things society can do.
Lastly, the evaluation should, at least in my estimation, be based upon this criteria:
Which is worse? Unwanted children, loss of productivity, social turmoil and misery, or a very reasonable levy upon the citizens in general?
To me, if that is the question (and I think it is), the answer is pretty much a foregone conclusion.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Then you think that no law should be based on religious belief; when in fact all law is.
I cannot keep up with the contortion of intellectual dishonesty required to type that sentence with a straight face. I don't think you're lying to me and that you really believe this, but I equally believe that you're lying to yourself. Have a nice day and best of luck in your future endeavors.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
religious freedom is one thing: a poor excuse for behaving badly.
...that the slaughter of Sepphoris would have no impact whatsoever on the childhood of Yeshua? That the wounded refugees sheltering in Nazereth would have no impact on him? That childhood memories of a Roman atrocity would have no lasting effect? That the PTSD his family likely suffered made no difference whatsoever?
You also mistake guile in talk of the occupation for peaceful intent - direct threats against the Romans was suicide. Did not Jesus say to sell your cloak and buy a sword? That he came to set 3 against 2, and 2 of 3, father against son, and mother daughter?
I'm not buying it. Reread all you like.
"Religious Freedom" means that you can believe as you wish free of government control or mandate, not that you can force others to believe what you believe or others can be forced to act in ways contrary to their beliefs, but consistent with yours.
The Bible is full of stories of real-world penalties that are to be paid for following your beliefs, including death. These modern believers want their outward expression of their beliefs to be free of any real-world consequences from people who do not share those beliefs. That's not how any of this works.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Try to get your float promoting Gay Therapy or Traditional Marriage into a Gay Pride Parade
Probably wouldn't work because those are strictly exclusive instead in inclusive. Both of those are attacks on gay people.
"Gay therapy" comes from the perspective that being gay is evil and it needs to be cured. It'd be a pretty big 'fuck you' to most people attending a pride parade.
"Traditional Marriage" isn't a celebration of heterosexual marriage, it's an attempt to outlaw marriage for homosexuals.
your right, what's the harm in letting people discriminate based on their prejudices, it's not like so many people would do it that someone is actually hurt
Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Right or wrong, LGTB is not in there.
If sex isn't the issue, then what is?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
The Founding Fathers were well aware of long traditions of the early colonies to attack other Christians of the wrong sect. Puritans hanging Quakers was an early American tradition, and much of the Constitution is written so that various religious groups can coexist.
When I say "various religious groups", let's not forget that while some might consider one group to just be another denomination of Christianity, there are plenty of people who may not agree. It is unlikely that we could unanimously agree that Mormons are Christians, and I've heard plenty of bad things said by various Protestants and Catholics about the Jehovah's Witnesses. Some of the more extreme Protestants claim that Catholics build false idols of Mary and their Saints and choose to pray to them instead of worshiping God. (I'm not interested in debating what Catholics do or do not believe, I was only stating the opinion of a minority of people, as I understand it)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You're free to exercise your religion, you're just not free to acquire a business license and operate under any hocus pocus framework you want.
But it seems that there is no federal law, as written, that prohibits discrimination of customers are a business based on sexual orientation. Not even federal employment laws seem to protect LGBT, except for federal employees
But the Supreme Court can establish a precedent that the existing federal laws that protect the enumerated classes of race, national origin, religion, sex, age, and disability also cover classes not enumerated (what criteria?). Doing so would then prevent states from operating pro-religion/anti-LGBT laws until the federal laws are modified to overturn the precedent by specifically excluding LGBT. It's not so unusual, Reed v. Reed (1971) extended the reach of this clause, and Romer v. Evans (1996) is a case that is strikingly similar to the current issue.
But until that happens, the issuing of business licenses is controlled at the State and County level and remains at their discretion as long as the federal guidelines are follow with regard to the enumerated protected classes. So if your State Assembly and Governor are into the same hocus pocus as you, you can all hold hands and triumphantly expel all the gays from your community. (no, not really going to play out that way. but that's what the end goal appears to be)
(that's how this arm-chair non-lawyer sees it)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The reason why these laws have been coming down is because people are concerned, rightly, that they will be compelled to engage in forced expression in favor of something that they find morally wrong. Whether you believe it is morally wrong is besides the point - no one should be compelled to engage in any form of expressive activity in favor of something they find morally repugnant. The first amendment enshrines our freedom of speech and the 13th states that no form of involuntary servitude is to be permitted in the United States - and trust me, if you're forced to make the choice between (1) being fined into eternal indebtedness to the state (as these fines cannot be discharged in bankruptcy) or having your livelihood cut off or (2) engaging in conduct you find wrong: it's involuntary. Why are people concerned about this? Bakers have been put out of business because they refused to use their artistic talents (which express themselves) to make wedding cakes for homosexual unions. At least one photographer was handed down ruinous fines for refusing to photograph a homosexual wedding. A florist was shut down for refusing to make a floral arrangement for a homosexual wedding. Each of these people believe that their actions would be tantamount to approving the homosexual wedding and such actions would be in violation of their deeply held religious belief (see, i.e. Romans 1:32 - the conduct itself is condemned, but even those who approve of such conduct are condemned). Frankly, I don't think that the gays who asked for these services did so in good faith - they did it to cause problems for those people because they loathe them. They want to drive religious expression completely from the public square and keep it confined to a two hour slot on Sunday (or Saturday as the case may be).
Having a system that supports the creation and nurturing of the next generation of mankind is in the long term best interests of homosexuals just as much as anyone else. Corrupting it into something purely based on decadent sex is not wise. For anyone.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I'd be perfectly okay with it. I think the right to choose with whom you associate should trump group rights.
Uh. Yeah. Being a cunt, nigger, faggot or kike hasn't worked too well historically, either. So, what exactly do you suggest?
Corrupting [marriage] into something purely based on decadent sex is not wise. For anyone.
But that's generally not what people who are gay are doing. I know two women that raised two or three kids together. Their marriage would not have been "just" about sex. Their marriage would have been a statement to the world that this is the person that comes first for me, which is pretty much the same statement that my hetero marriage does.
But, based on your statement, what about hetero marriages where the couple find they are infertile? At that point is their marriage "purely based on decadent sex"? If so, should we force their marriage to be annulled if they find they can't have children? What if they get married past their childbearing years?
If [one of] the purposes of marriage is to declare monogamy towards one other person, why shouldn't gays be able to publicly declare such a thing? Wouldn't encouraging gay marriage be a means of reducing promiscuous sex?
Honestly, go through and write down all of the reasons that marriage (of any form) should be recognized and then objectively ask yourself if that reason would also apply to a gay couple. Keep in mind that with artificial insemination and adoption, gay couples can be parents. If you get over your own revolution to the gay lifestyle, you might find that your objections to gay marriage start to fall away.
For me, the line is drawn where some group uses the state to force their lifestyle/belief on others
So, people in Texas who try to use the board of education to promote textbooks that have a negative stance on evolution? These people are from the left? I wasn't aware.
No company wants to hire a muslim.
So an employer can either cite a law that allows the company to do this, when a muslim applies for a job, or, as was always the case before these laws, use vague arguments such as 'we have found an other candidate that better fits in the existing team' or 'an other candidate better fits the current company culture.'
So effectively, nothing changes, just the way it is motivated changes.
Not being an intellectually lazy, hate-filled bigot is also important in life - you might want to work on that.
At least he was just a grasping, greedy meglomanical fascist, and I didn't need to hear public proclamations of his sexual orientation or just how much he was going to pooch his family in his will when he kicks off. Now this.
Honestly, you idiot, I don't care about any of your thoughts on any of these topics. You seems to think that because you're the world's most publicly rich gay man, that gives you cred. Pfft.
I am required by the government, over penalty of a large fine to do business with corrupt insurance companies. I MUST purchase their product, that provides me nothing that I can't provide on my own. I like how now we equate having insurance with having access to health care. Currently I pay about 10,000 dollars a year for insurance that provides me about 5000 dollars in services a year. What could I do with that additional 5,000 dollars a year for the next 10-15 years that I am running a surplus to create a saving account that I can pay for services when I am older and running a deficit.
To make it more plain. On average the country pays more to insurance companies that they are provided in medical services... otherwise the insurance companies would go out of business.
So, yes currently the government compels me to do business with a company that I don't want to
Yes, and I have to pay car and buildings insurance and get nothing back at all each year! Those evil insurance companies are just pocketing my money and buying themselves yachts.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
NO, Hindus are the ones with the cow issues, not Buddhists.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Thank you for this comment. I am following the discussion with utter disbelieve. What century are we in?
Having a system that supports the creation and nurturing of the next generation of mankind is in the long term best interests of homosexuals just as much as anyone else. Corrupting it into something purely based on decadent sex is not wise. For anyone.
Bullshit. You don't believe this, it's just an excuse to enable your prejudice. If you really believed it you'd be up in arms over opposite-sex married couples who don't have children and supporting same-sex couples who have children (adopted or other wise).
Fanatically anti-fanatical
declare him an enemy combatant
That is not true, it is not in the interests of homosexuals because they usually don't have children.
Basically "behind me the deluge" is their interest.
Fair enough, but why should we let homosexuals define societal norms? Are we really sure that a world suited for homosexuals is a better world? And why can homosexuals not just move all to San Francisco and let everybody else alone?
Pilate sent scores of insurgents to Golgatha every day. Tiberius recalled him to Rome for sending a phalanx to butcher several thousand Jews in a riot. A personal interview was thus extremely unlikely, and the "hand washing" just preposterous.
Try a basic test - who met Jesus first after the resurrection? Each gospel has a different answer. Unless you are extremely versed at doublethink, some of them have to be wrong.
Is it hate filled to say:
"The state should not define what the church does"
?
I am saying that the state redefining marriage is wrong as it is a religious ceremony, and as TFA is talking about, it is just a matter of time before the hate filled anti religion bigots decide that they need to tell the church that they will have to marry gay people even though it is wrong in their eyes.
But I'm the hate filled bigot trying to say that religion should be able to choose, and if the Methodists want to allow gay marriage, more power to them, but the state is FORBIDDEN from doing so by the first amendment, and now the state is going against the first amendment and telling people that their religious objections are meaningless, and that the state knows best.
You might want to work on reading comprehension as well. I have not a single time said anything hate filled. I haven't yet said that gay marriage is wrong, or shouldn't happen. I said it should be up to the church on if they want to preform a religious ceremony for someone who the religion itself says is sinning by even considering marriage. I am saying (as this law is trying to codify) that no one should be forced to photograph a gay wedding that makes them uncomfortable. That is called hostile workplace lawsuit. But there have been cases where a photographer was sued because they didn't want to participate. Is this right? NO.
If anyone is being intellectually lazy here, it is you. You have said not one thing in response to what I have said, you haven't made a point, you just state in a very lazy manner that I am a bigot without taking on any of the points I made.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Last I checked the First Amendment was passed in 1791 and stated that the state was forbidden from "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,". This law that is being discussed in TFA is talking about that, and I was bringing up another side to it. I am saying the state shouldn't be determining what marriage is because it is a religious ceremony. It should be each religion's choice whether they will marry a gay couple, not the state's choice. The recent outcry over this Indiana law highlights that it is just a matter of time before anti religion people try to take that power next, and forget that this country was founded on the concept of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
If the Methodists want to marry gay people, more power to them, it doesn't effect me in any way. If the state tells all religions that they are required to marry any couple no matter what sexes they are, that is wrong and against the first amendment.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Discrimination is not inherently bad. It is the application that is bad.
We don't have a 'right' to drive a car, it is a privilege. It is discriminatory against the people that want to drive a car that don't want to abide by other definition of 'civil conduct'. It is also discriminatory to allow ANYONE to get away with anything that EVERYONE is allowed (but not required) to do.
Get over it. Life isn't 'fair'.
... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
You call the complete destruction of Jerusalem unrest?
And I imagine that Sepphoris also was not destroyed in 4BC by the Roman legions that were not in Judea?
And Herod Agrippa was a kind and just ruler, of whom Claudius remarked "I'd rather be his dog than his son?"
Both children (teenagers at least) and animals are sexual creatures
But they are incapable of giving informed, human consent. Yes, even human teenagers. That is the distinction that is drawn.
what about rights for nudists to eat in public? Where does it end?
You are ignoring the fact that we are murdering animals for fun ( completely legal). If you say homosexuality should be legal, then bestiality, is also should be legal, and so as incest ( especially homosexual incest).
Most Western societies have long long ago decided that violence is a less serious affair than sexuality.
As a Christian I can understand why people would want such protections from having their small business's being shutdown because they don't want to participate in a gay wedding or activity. The law is the same as the Federal law that was signed by Bill Clinton and has been adopted by 26 other states. Even the State of CT one of the largest Gay protectorates in the US has that same law on the books. That being said I would say as a Christian I would not hesitate providing services to gay people at gay events. Money is money even if I don't agree with their activities. St. Paul says to Christians, to eat meat that was previously sacrifced to Roman gods because the food ultimately comes from God. I look at work contracts that come from the Gay community in the same way. It's work that is comming from God and it's resources being provided ultimately from God. Jesus would never turn away people for just being gay. He welcomed every shunned person in the first century, Women, Prostitutes, Publicans, tax collectors and others. I don't see why he would not welcome gay people either. I think American Christians need to be more like Christ and less like their favorite TV preachers. Sorry folks for taking up too many words or being snarky here like many others.
Paul E. Bahre
Eddie Murphy has had a checkered movie history. For every Norbit, there's the scene from Dreamgirls where he won (rightfully) an Academy Award for a single look.
He didn't win, Ed Asner won that year. But he was nominated, at least. I put Murphy now in the same category as Adam Sandler and Rob Schneider. Guys who do seem like they have comedic chops (all three of them showed those as SNL cast members) but who have terrible, TERRIBLE taste in movies.
Sandler in particular is on record as saying that he doesn't try very hard in his movies, and they are nothing more than ways to get paid while bringing a bunch of his friends in and goofing off for a few months (Grown-Ups is a good example).
Now about Tyler Perry though....
Tyler Perry was quite good in Gone Girl. And, amusingly, the 2009 Star Trek reboot. And of course, the Dave Chappelle Show.
Fair enough, but why should we let homosexuals define societal norms?
The majority do, and nowadays 55% want same sex marriage to be legal.
What a surprise that you prefer to remain anonymous, coward. Unlike Tim Cook.
Of course he doesn't. He's just frightened.
... But not for Thee Tim Cook is merely echoing the ignorance and bigotry of the radical left. He cannot fathom a situation where citizens should be protected from government action that violates their religious beliefs. The stance taken by Tim Cook is nothing less than Anti-Christian Bigotry http://bit.ly/anti-christian-b... There is a very big difference between discriminating against someone based on who they are as opposed to actions they are taking. RFRA laws simply allow my company to defend itself against the government when it wants to force us to participate in actions that violate the religious beliefs of the company. Those on the radical left are not content with just leaving no room for dissent - they also want hearty approval (from their opponents!) for actions the opponent finds offensive. "To require a wedding vendor to service a same-sex wedding is not eliminating discrimination against the gay couple. It’s coercing the wedding vendor. Think of an alternative situation where a gay baker is required [forced] to bake dessert cakes for a pro-marriage [anti- same-sex marriage] rally sponsored by a conservative group. Surely we should acknowledge that a person should not be required to provide a good or service for an event premised on views that the baker finds objectionable. Do you really want to live in a country where supposedly free businesses are required to use their goods and services against their will?" http://bit.ly/indiana-rfra-eig...
"What these religious-freedom laws say is that government can require people to violate their religious beliefs only when it is pursuing a compelling interest, and must do so in the least intrusive manner possible." http://bit.ly/tim-cook-do-your...
"... what the Indiana and other bills actually do is help manage an important policy dilemma. As a society, do we value gay rights? Increasingly the answer is yes. Do we value religious freedom and practice? Historically the answer is yes. We value both, but they do not always live easily together. What this bill does is help courts manage the dilemma—while protecting against discrimination, also protecting religious rights where the state has no compelling interest in violating them or where alternative policies less restrictive to religious rights should be pursued." http://bit.ly/indiana-sanity
Usually it's the Democratic Party attempting to divide and conquer We the People -- anything to hand-wave away from the 4,000,000 words of IRS Tax Code, the flood of red ink, and the lack of efficacy checks throughout the Presidential cabinets.
In this case, the Republicans and their extreme Christian lobby have divided We the People with a very foolish division -- Religious vs. Non-Religious. This is a violation of secular ideals, to say the least.
Rather than Pence claiming that it's okay "because Clinton did it" the GOTP should modify the wording to put it more in line with the Right to Remain silent and/or Conscientious Objection -- for example "Freedom of Conscious" act. This would have protected both secular and religious people from performing acts for hire that they find personally appalling.
Full Disclosure : I am a profound Tea Party Libertarian who despises the Modern Democratic Party and believes that a three step process exists to restore the Constitution : 1) Drop the IRS Tax Code from 4,000,000 words to a small set of entities and formulas; 2) Abolish the Continuing Resolution (force the Legislature to Appropriate); 3) Privatize all of the Executive Cabinets and use a small shim of highly trained Validation and Verification specialists to perform contract monitoring. I believe in the restoration of Freedoms and Liberties for all adults, regardless.
George Costanza: [Soup Nazi gives him a look] Medium turkey chili.
[instantly moves to the cashier]
Jerry Seinfeld: Medium crab bisque.
George Costanza: [looks in his bag and notices no bread in it] I didn't get any bread.
Jerry Seinfeld: Just forget it. Let it go.
George Costanza: Um, excuse me, I - I think you forgot my bread.
Soup Nazi: Bread, $2 extra.
George Costanza: $2? But everyone in front of me got free bread.
Soup Nazi: You want bread?
George Costanza: Yes, please.
Soup Nazi: $3!
George Costanza: What?
Soup Nazi: NO SOUP FOR YOU!
Soup Nazi: What is this? You're kissing in my line? NOBODY KISSES IN MY LINE!
Sheila: I can kiss anywhere I want to.
Soup Nazi: You just cost yourself a soup!
Elaine Benes: Um... you know what? Has anyone ever told you you look exactly like Al Pacino? You know, "Scent Of A Woman." Who-ah! Who-ah!
Soup Nazi: Very good. Very good.
Elaine Benes: Well, I...
Soup Nazi: You know something?
Elaine Benes: Hmmm?
Soup Nazi: NO SOUP FOR YOU!
Elaine Benes: What?
Soup Nazi: COME BACK ONE YEAR! NEXT!
I am. I believe in annullment of non fruitful unions. Fuck who you like, cohabitate as you like, but make marriage about nurturing families has ALWAYS been my position. I came to this position when my tasks as a life insurance agent/financial planner led me to help rich DINKs pay less taxes using marriage laws, and felt strongly enough about it to change careers.
My position may not be to your liking, but it is still based on logical long term social best interests as I see them, and not extremism or prejudice.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I've not been keeping up, but I'm pretty sure Indiana still has a better track record on human rights than China.
And that's even if you buy the bizarre notion that bakers and photographers and such are "common carriers" who have to accept anyone who meanders up to their doors as a customer.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
The do retire. Think big picture for a minute?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Religions are ~2000 years old;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Humans are ~200,000 years old;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Casteism
There's only ONE freedom and its absolute. If you want freedom of religion than there must also be freedom from religion. And I disagree: Marriage is not only a religious thing. It also has broad implications on the real life. And - since you quoted the constitution: Please always remember: All men are created equal. That is the spirit of the forefathers philosophies. Everything else has to obey this very basic principle.
Wow. Enjoy being clueless, son. Clue: those things exist for a reason.
[FUCK BETA]
There were several miracle workers in Judea at the time of Yeshua, some who could even raise the dead by contemporary accounts. The main difference is that Yeshua performed his miracles without monetary charge. If this aspect is similar, and rebellion was a common sentiment (i.e. Sepphoris), then we can assume that Yeshua was familiar with the issues, even if he did not share the opinions of all of them.
After the crucifixion, Paul changed Yeshua radically, abandoning Mosaic law and calling himself the "first apostle." James the Just, the head of the whole church, recalled Paul to Jerusalem twice, and censured him for what would amount to heresy. James then dispatched emissaries to all of Paul's congregations to correct the "flawed" teaching, which was largely successful. There is even a story in the memoirs of Clement (Peter's successor) that Paul threw James down a flight of stairs in a rage on his second return.
Paul's teachings would have been discarded, if James had not been murdered, and Jerusalem destroyed. As it was, Paul's writings were the only existing documents after Jerusalem's fall, and all the later gospels included strong influence from his letters.
The rebellious attitude of Yeshua towards the Romans would not serve a new Roman religion, so it was removed, for practical reasons.
Sex is for making babies. Gays can't do that and defy a natural order. End of subject.
So let me get this straight - the only time people should have sex is if you want to have a baby and it's the right time in the woman's cycle?
If you expect anyone to believe that, you're crazier than me!
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The spirit of the forefathers would have all women not having the vote (as all MEN were created equal), and only the wealthy land owners having a vote (which is who the vote was originally allowed for).
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Multiple levels. This didn't work out well for Starbucks. He's gay, we get that. Get a room joy-boy. Buy from me if you like. Don't require me to do something I don't want to do as a business and is against my religion using the force of the Government.
Apple is also sucking. Well on the decline, just like Microsoft did, just like IBM did, just like... well you get the idea. Less gay stuff, more cool stuff.
The correct balance is probably to allow it for sole proprietorships but not parternships or corporations. That way individuals aren't forced to violate their conscience while groups are required to conform to societal norms. If Joe's lawnmower service center or Sally's cake shop is discriminatory it's probably not a big deal in the grand scheme of things (distasteful as it may be to some), but if you have the same problem with Toro or Albertsons it's a major issue. This makes both sides unhappy, so it's likely the best compromise solution.
Discrimination is discrimination. It can't be half discrimination. The question then too, is drug use discrimination with consequences?
In my view discrimination is insidious. We have likes and dislikes. We choose one grocery store over another because we are more comfortable shopping there. We choose a model of car for the same reason.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Discrimination is discrimination. It can't be half discrimination.
Of course it is, but it's not quite that straightforward. We allow many kinds of discrimination and prevent some. We also try to protect freedom of association and freedom of religion. Sometimes those three things conflict and we end up with a situation where supporting one thing decreases support of the others and so decisions have to be made about where to draw the line. Previously the line was all in favor of those against same sex marriage, recently things have shifted the other direction, as a society we'll have to figure out how to balance things fairly. Perhaps the right place to draw the line is zero tolerance, perhaps it's not, I'm sure there will be plenty of debate about it going forward just as there has been about things like racism and affirmative action.
Animals can consent, as can children. Does not happen very often, no. And any consent they grant is almost certainly not informed consent. But it's not impossible for them to agree to things like that.
It is still fucked up, regardless.
I would be interested in Tim Cook's opinion on Iran's gay rights being that they have a store in Tehran and all. I'll wait......
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
So, I guess transsexuals have been a protected class for decades because you can't discriminate on the basis of a person's sex :-) Ditto Intersex.
(actually, the Canadian courts have long held this position, that discrimination based on birth sex is illegal because it's discrimination against someone based on sex.)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.