"... 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
"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...
... 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...
Slashdot Mirror
"... 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
"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...
... 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...