Freedom Of Religion
Neighbor

Mokena, IL

#1 Feb 26, 2014
Freedom Of Religion is a Constitutional right.

Just as it is wrong to try to force Little Sisters Of The Poor to directly or indirectly support Abortion activities, it is just as wrong to force deeply religious business owners to directly or indirectly support "imposed Gay Rights".

Many of us are certainly not anti-gay, but are anti-Gay rights trying to trump the Constitution & Freedom Of Religion.

I say you don't have to agree with either side here, but one should respect Gay folks as you need to respect religious folks.

This is a Gay trouble maker move anyway. Do you really think there is only one Photographer or one Baker out there? No, these deeply religious folks were sought out by Gay trouble makers.

What are your thoughts?

I say, respect the Constitutional right to Freedom Of Religion and Vote Yes to the bill. We really have no other choice against this blackmail.
John boy

New Lenox, IL

#2 Feb 26, 2014
I hear you!
Sharky

Schenectady, NY

#4 Feb 26, 2014
Hi neighbor, you seem to be confused as to what Freedom of religion actually entails. The only way you can legitimately discriminate against others is to convert your business to a private, members only social club. The Tea Billy evangelicals have an infantile understanding of what the Bible actually teaches, Love your neighbor. As yourself, I'd rather not do business with ignorant Tea Billys but there money spends just like any ones else.
Daniel Plainview

Minneapolis, MN

#5 Feb 26, 2014
God is a superstition.
Bewildered

Romeoville, IL

#6 Feb 26, 2014
Let me ask if you think private businesses should be allowed to deny service to a couple marrying after one of them had been divorced. That is just as wrong according to the Bible. Should private businesses be allowed to deny service to an interracial couple getting married? Many religions state that interracial unions are sinful. Should private businesses be allowed to deny service to women who are not accompanied by a male family member? A strict Muslim business owner may feel his religion compels him to do just that.

I think an argument can be made that any of the above scenarios should be allowed and that consumers can choose to not use businesses that discriminate in ways that they don't like; however, you can't just carve out an exception for homosexuals and ignore all other potential religious discrimination without a good reason as to why homosexuals are a different type of group than any of the others mentioned above.

Obviously, a parallel can be drawn to lunch counters in the Jim Crow south where business owners were allowed to deny service to blacks. That right was struck down and I don't hear too many people yelling for that to come back. It seems like a hard argument to make that denying service to homosexuals is ok but denying service to other minority groups is not ok.
big guy

United States

#9 Feb 26, 2014
Bewildered wrote:
Let me ask if you think private businesses should be allowed to deny service to a couple marrying after one of them had been divorced. That is just as wrong according to the Bible. Should private businesses be allowed to deny service to an interracial couple getting married? Many religions state that interracial unions are sinful. Should private businesses be allowed to deny service to women who are not accompanied by a male family member? A strict Muslim business owner may feel his religion compels him to do just that.

I think an argument can be made that any of the above scenarios should be allowed and that consumers can choose to not use businesses that discriminate in ways that they don't like; however, you can't just carve out an exception for homosexuals and ignore all other potential religious discrimination without a good reason as to why homosexuals are a different type of group than any of the others mentioned above.

Obviously, a parallel can be drawn to lunch counters in the Jim Crow south where business owners were allowed to deny service to blacks. That right was struck down and I don't hear too many people yelling for that to come back. It seems like a hard argument to make that denying service to homosexuals is ok but denying service to other minority groups is not ok.
Excellently stated.
someone

Elm Grove, WI

#10 Feb 26, 2014
Well stated bewildered. To go along with your statement about private businesses, the NFL may not allow Arizona to have any more Super Bowls. As a private organization they have that right. Other private businesses will follow the NFL lead and Arizona tourism will go in the crapper.
Neighbor

Mokena, IL

#12 Feb 27, 2014
Interesting how many media outlets today say "Anti-Gay Bill Vetoed" vs "Freedom Of Religion Bill Vetoed". Go check....

Unfortunately, Gay blackmail worked again. I guess a man who sucks a pole & a woman who carpet munchies can impose their sexual preference lifestyle desires, which according to the bible breaks Gods rules, over those who are deeply religious. I am by far not anti-gay, but I am by far a believer in the Constitutional rights all folks in this country have. Only an idiot cannot see this as a blackmail move. Look, according to the bible we are all sinners. The bible lays out Gods rules and you follow them or you don't. That's your individual decision. But do not disrespect those who deeply believe in God's rules.

That's all I have to say. This is not comparable to black white, nor any discrimination scenario. It was purely about our Constitutional right to Freedom Of Religion. Now the Government say's wink wink, but fell to blackmail on this one.
Daniel Plainview

Minneapolis, MN

#13 Feb 27, 2014
Neighbor wrote:
Interesting how many media outlets today say "Anti-Gay Bill Vetoed" vs "Freedom Of Religion Bill Vetoed". Go check....
Unfortunately, Gay blackmail worked again. I guess a man who sucks a pole & a woman who carpet munchies can impose their sexual preference lifestyle desires, which according to the bible breaks Gods rules, over those who are deeply religious. I am by far not anti-gay, but I am by far a believer in the Constitutional rights all folks in this country have. Only an idiot cannot see this as a blackmail move. Look, according to the bible we are all sinners. The bible lays out Gods rules and you follow them or you don't. That's your individual decision. But do not disrespect those who deeply believe in God's rules.
That's all I have to say. This is not comparable to black white, nor any discrimination scenario. It was purely about our Constitutional right to Freedom Of Religion. Now the Government say's wink wink, but fell to blackmail on this one.
God is a superstition.
Sharky

Schenectady, NY

#14 Feb 27, 2014
yeah but, you dopes cherry pick scripture and only want to enforce some of it. should bristol palin have been taken out to the street and stoned to death? I don't think you actually comprehend the bible at all, the ultimate command is to love your neighbour (love you neighbour!!!:))as you love your self. and here is the problem, most of y'all hate yourselfs. but let's do it another way: what you would find hateful if done to you, do not do to another.
The actual Biblical sabbath is from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown, no commerce is to be engaged in. how many of you shallow and superficial Xtians will obey the sabbath? I'm betting none
I think the overarchng problem is 90% of christians don't actually know/understand what Jesus taught.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Politics-Jesus-Redi... .
Neigbor

Mokena, IL

#15 Feb 27, 2014
Sharky Duhhhh..You do know Jesus never read the bible? It was written after his death. Still, non believers behave like non believers, think like non believers, talk like non believers. We are all sinners, just that some break different rules. Some folks think its cool to kill their baby, other folks take the Gay route. In these two cases, these folks demand you approve. Their winning.
Sharky

Schenectady, NY

#16 Feb 27, 2014
Neigbor wrote:
Sharky Duhhhh..You do know Jesus never read the bible? It was written after his death. Still, non believers behave like non believers, think like non believers, talk like non believers. We are all sinners, just that some break different rules. Some folks think its cool to kill their baby, other folks take the Gay route. In these two cases, these folks demand you approve. Their winning.
er.....Neighbor, Jesus taught exclusively from the Old Testament/Bible. I give up, you guys are just too dumb. lol
Sharky

Schenectady, NY

#17 Feb 27, 2014
are you aware that abortion is at a 40 year low?
someone

Elm Grove, WI

#18 Feb 27, 2014
Jesus was known for quoting Scripture. Both the written and spoken. It is how he became known as a teacher. His miracles and acts were done as examples or to verify issues bases on the Old Testament writings
Neigbor

Mokena, IL

#19 Feb 27, 2014
Sharky wrote:
are you aware that abortion is at a 40 year low?
Is that a good thing? What's it down to?
CC Ryder

Plainfield, IL

#20 Feb 27, 2014
Daniel Plainview wrote:
God is a superstition.
So what you are saying is if " G_D is a superstition" and I live my life well and do right you believe I've lost something? I don't think so as I've done the best I could.
On the other hand since you believe " G_D is superstition" and your beliefs turn out to be false then how do you explain away your belief's when standing before such an entity?
Just wondering?
Appalled

Joliet, IL

#21 Feb 27, 2014
IMO, both the gay faction and the religious faction have a tendency to push their agenda on other people. The gays did it to Phil Robertson and to Chick Fil A by trying to limit their business because of their personal opinions. And in this case religion is trying to limit the rights of gays because of their personal choices. Religious factions claim that gays are using blackmail tactics and yet they use the same tactics in their opposition to a woman's right to make decisions regarding her own body.

You have the right to believe and choose as you wish but serving people who believe differently is not a compromise to your beliefs. It is discrimination and when studied closely, that is exactly what the Bible warns against. Jesus himself taught and led people towards the message of God but he never turned his back on them.

In the end it is about personal choices and nobody has the right to push their agenda on someone else no matter what direction the pushing is coming from. When someone forces you into a same sex relationship or into ending a pregnancy or taking birth control pills against your will, then you can claim an assault on your religious freedom. But refusing to sell a service to someone who does not agree with your views is very much discrimination.
Neigbor

Mokena, IL

#22 Feb 28, 2014
Appalled... so many places to start but lets do this:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, "impeding the free exercise of religion", abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.

There it is ..... We in this country have this as our right. Radical Gay's cherry picking a deeply religious Baker was planned, not random.

Don't drink the cool-aid on this one Appalled. Your points neglect the First Amendment. This has never been about anti-Gay, that is the trap you fell into.

Blackmail trumped the Constitution. Game over.
Bewildered

Morris, IL

#25 Feb 28, 2014
Neigbor wrote:
Appalled... so many places to start but lets do this:
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, "impeding the free exercise of religion", abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.
There it is ..... We in this country have this as our right. Radical Gay's cherry picking a deeply religious Baker was planned, not random.
Don't drink the cool-aid on this one Appalled. Your points neglect the First Amendment. This has never been about anti-Gay, that is the trap you fell into.
Blackmail trumped the Constitution. Game over.
Note that the First Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion. But you think its ok for a law to be passed that cherry-picks anti-gay religious business owners as a group that should be allowed to deny service because of their religious beliefs. If that is the case, then would you also support a law that allows Muslim business owners to deny service to women who are not accompanied by an adult male? What about fundamentalist Jewish or Christian business owners who do not believe anyone should wear clothes that are made by combining two kinds of material (Leviticus 19:19)?

Now, if I was a gay person planning a wedding and looking for a cake, the last baker I would go to would be the ones who I know hate me (I don't imagine I would get a very good cake), but to expect the government to step in and defend the business owner's 'right' here is silly and opens up a pandora's box of other businesses claiming 'religious beliefs' to get out of doing anything that is expected of other businesses in their field. Every time something happens that someone doesn't like doesn't mean we need to pass a new law.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#26 Feb 28, 2014
To Neighbor and others... If this bill was to benefit business owners and give them more rights in how they conduct business, why did so many business owners oppose it and personally write to the Governor to veto it? Local and Corporations were very concerned about this bill

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/26/jan-...

Did you know that the Governor is a REPUBLICAN? Did you know that both REPUBLICAN State Senators (McCain and Flake) urged her to veto the bill? In a Democracy, although it is hard to believe sometimes, you have to do what the PEOPLE actually want, instead of what a select few religious radicals want. Do you understand the devastating effect this bill would have had on tourism to the state? The NFL was thinking about moving the Super Bowl out of Arizona if it passed.

I believe that each state has the right to determine to legalize gay marriage or unions or benefits to couples. But this had nothing to do with religious rights. This was just another attempt by ultra conservative religious politicians trying to once again find a way to discriminate against a group of people.

If she would have signed it into law, she would not have been reelected, Arizona would lose tourism, the Super Bowl, many businesses, and in the end, I guarantee you that the Arizona Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court would have eventually deemed it unconstitutional anyways because it clearly violates the Discrimination clause in the constitution. So, set your hatred aside and look at the big picture for once.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Joliet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Neighbors Helping Neighbors 9 hr Voice of reason 11
If there is no God, then there is no objective ... 10 hr What the Huh 26
Tadpoles need a rescue 10 hr willing to save some 9
Last Post Wins (Sep '12) 12 hr Alex Nicole 852
attention all trump supporters 13 hr okimar 147
Are We Watching the End Of the Trump Presidency? 13 hr LMAO 3
Council stung by its boner 14 hr Reggie 9

Joliet Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Joliet Mortgages