Republicans plan to reintroduce Anti-LGBT ‘religious freedom’ bill supported by Trump

It is currently the law of the land that it is legal to discriminate against homosexuals, but not legal to discriminate against Christians. Who can defend that discrepancy and on what basis?

 

Heterosexism is the new racism

You know government is getting out of control when the Department of Agriculture is busying themselves with such things. Reminds me of tasking NASA with promoting recognition of Muslims contributions to the sciences.

 

Its existence doesn't make it normal. Cannibalism has a much more long and rich history in both human and animal society. Should we legalize it for the same reason you are giving?

- - - Updated - - -

You really should look up the definition of bigotry. You are displaying it right here and now.

 

Freedom of religion, specified in the Constitution, takes precedence over the freedom to force a baker to bake you a cake. A freedom created by state statute or local ordinance.

 

Who cares what's normal. Most of us supposedly value maximizing liberty. There is no reason to restrict anyone's liberty to be a homosexual other than it's effects on limiting the liberty of others. What's normal is completely meaningless unless you just get off on everyone thinking the same.

 

Obviously you didn't read what I responded to then.

Its not up to the public to justify the existence of a new right some group wants. That is what the amendment process is for. That was bypassed by activists in the courts bastardizing an amendment never written for marriage and opened the doors for any marriage between humans.

It was so mind numbingly stupid its amazing to see anyone defending it.

 

It is illegal for a Christian baker to refuse baking a cake for a Muslim as the law currently stands. It would still be illegal even if one of the ten commandments was " Thou shall not bake cakes for Muslims". What again is the difference?

 

I won't deny that you can find logic in interpreting things that way by just saying marriage is between a man and a woman over and over. Wondering if there was any moral defense for thinking that way.

 

I understand you want to put the responsibility on the public for the new "right" you want but that's not how the Constitution works. The amendment process was created to justify a new right demanded by the people. You don't have and never did have the amount of people agreeing with you which is why your movement bastardized an existing amendment written to grant slaves citizenship instead of justifying your need for a gay marriage.

What makes gay marriage so special? It isn't genetic. We know this from basic biology. And it is a condition that can be announced at a press conference and reversed just as easily so I'm failing to see the significance.

 

I'm not gay, it's not my movement. I was just hoping you might have some reason to want to deny people something they want to do when it has little to nothing to do with you. Are you just sanctimonious? I could be wrong, but I always though most Americans supported giving people as much freedom as possible when balanced with the freedom of others.

 

Then anal sex and oral sex (aka "gay sex") is normal as a majority of heterosexuals engage in those activities as well. So you don't need to worry about "deviant sexual behavior".

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, then why should marriage only be limited to one man and one woman?

- - - Updated - - -

No one is forced to participate. Can you show any gay marriage in US history where any participant was dragged there via force against their will?

 

Congress is the only body that is prohibited from "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Please point out where the constitution specifies that private business should be forced to cater to people claiming religious affiliation.

The state laws are valid
I hope they shut down every one of them

I hear Texas is free from regulation - maybe they should move to where their kind is tolerated.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...-owner-fined-80k-refusing-gay-wedding-co.html

that was too easy

 

How is that participation? They were going to make the owners officiate? Maybe make them be ushers or something?

 

State licensure laws.

You folks haven't got a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue or an argument.

This is not participation in anything other then state law.

What anything joke.

 

$80,000 in punishment if they did not service the celebration of the gay-lifestyle.

Thankfully this will be coming to an end. The govt cannot force another to service an event which celebrates activities with which an individual disagrees be it gay-sex, hunting, eating meat etc etc etc

- - - Updated - - -

the new SCOTUS cannot get here soon enough along with the restoration of the Constitution

 

What part didn't you understand Einstein?

 

The tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage isn't "something they want to do". And nothing prevents gays from marrying without a license if that's "something they want to do". So where is freedom even involved here.

 

I don't have strong feeling one way or the other but it is so limited because the birth of a child only obligates two people in the world, the woman who gave birth and the man who caused her to do so.

 

Im the guy that opposes laws forcing individuals to cater to others.

 

Withholding tax breaks and governmental entitlements that the majority of Americans don't get. HAS NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on anyones liberty.

 

Then why are you not calling for the repeal of public accommodation laws and instead just focusing on being allowed to discriminate against a single specific group.

I too oppose all laws mandating service - the difference between me and you is that I want it applied equally - if one group has the ability to force everyone to serve them then I don't blame every group from trying to gain the same.

 

I hope the states with these types of provisions shut down every single business engaged in the act of discrimination against a protected class. What was it y'all say, "why don't they move to a state that accepts their lifestyle". That you want the federal government to force states to do something dismantles every argument you have ever made for states rights.

I think you are going to be very disappointed with your new SCOTUS on these issues.

 

...............

 

Which in no way invalidates my previous statement, that you had to cut out part of the quote shows your complete lack of integrity.
Care to answer the question?