Politics
Politics
Out of context: Reply #25971
- Started
- Last post
- 33,468 Responses
- reanimate2
Trump set to sign "religious freedom" order pushed by Mike Pence that will legalize discrimination against gay people across the country
- Assholesmonospaced
- Bet he washed his hands after holding that flag. Fat, malignant, cunt.face_melter
- He's also holding it upside downyuekit
- Churches, mosques, or temples can choose too perform gay marriages. Should they be legally required to, under penalty of law?IRNlun6
- They aren't businesses and so churches have nothing at all to do with this. This is about using personal religion to discriminate in a public business.monospaced
- aka, "we don't bake cakes for fags" and stuff like that. Surely you know the difference and how this law protects that kind of discrimination on sexual prefmonospaced
- Churches are private institutions and very much businesses. Should private business be allowed to discriminate on political preferences?IRNlun6
- Churches don't pay taxes. They might take money, but they are certainly not businesses in the sense that you are implying. Churches ARE allowed to discriminate.monospaced
- These laws, ONCE AGAIN, are NOT related to churches, ANY of them. They're protecting religious business owners who hate serving people they hate.monospaced
- replace "gay" or "transgender" with "black" and you'll maybe start to understand the context within civil rightsmonospaced
- so a person has a business and he doesn't like your kind, and you WANT to do business with him.omg
- that's really beside the point, omg ... but if there's a community of business owners who publicly refuse service to LGBT, that's pure discriminationmonospaced
- I do see the point you're making, omg, and the answer is "no." But then we'd have businesses that would basically have signs saying "LGBT not welcome."monospaced
- Your analogy is like telling Rosa Parks that she shouldn't WANT to ride the bus, since the bus "business" doesn't like her "kind." Think about it. Thanks.monospaced
- Private schools have denied conservative speakers from speaking at events. I'd agree they should be allowed to.IRNlun6
- Why should political discrimination be allowed, yet other forms of discrimination not be allowed? Are some more acceptable than others?IRNlun6
- To clarify, private schools should be allowed to chose who they allow to speak. It does get weird when you bring in race or sexuality. Same issue though.IRNlun6
- Discriminating against n race, religion and sex is explicitly protected against in the USA, and comparing it to a political opinion is ridiculous.monospaced
- And hey, if someone refuses you service because you voted for Trump, then you have a right to take that up with them legally. It's not "allowed" as you claim.monospaced
- Show me one institution, private or public, that refuses service or speaking engagements to an entire political class. Please, happy to wait.monospaced
- I think it's systematic discrimination they are trying to prevent. It's easy to say one store should have the right to do it, but what happens when everyyuekit
- business in a community decides they don't want to serve gays, blacks, etc. Which is exactly what happened during Jim Crow era.yuekit
- Do you think humans 50-years since civil rights movements of the 60s still need laws preventing discrimination?omg
- Are these anti-discrimination laws the key preventing everyone here from going racially berzerk?omg
- @omg yes, actually, sadlymonospaced
- to say they aren't is beyond naivemonospaced
- Case in point, right here. Mike Pence doesn't really like gay people, and wants to revoke laws that protect gay people in order to favor a christian-right agendmonospaced
- He is doing this on behalf of entire communities who agree with him. Business owners who want to refuse service to people they don't like. Like blacks and gays.monospaced
- The 1964 Civil Rights act, and following civil rights legislation prohibits employment discrimination. Not who businesses choose to sell to.IRNlun6
- I don't have any answers, I just don't think its so cut and dry. This is infringing on one groups liberty to advance another's.IRNlun6
- Political affiliation is a bad example since it's not protected under civil rights legislation...IRNlun6
- Actually the Civil Rights Act does cover who businesses sell to.yuekit
- It's sad that we are still debating this 50 years later, that's for sure.yuekit
- Civil Rights specifically addresses who businesses cater to. Otherwise we'd have situations where business say "no fags allowed" (aka, Pence land).monospaced
- Ok, I see you're right yuekit. JFK had specifically mentioned "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public."IRNlun6
- Taking a wild guess. The only real business we're probably talking about here is marriage. The color of green is still accepted everywhere else.omg
- All other scenarios are just figments of your imaginations. Dragging in black people into the scenario just makes it worse for them if its not really an issue.omg
- Why they would want fight to be served at the KKK bar is ridiculous and would be counter productive to any business brand.omg
- Yet that goes beyond religious liberty.omg
- Your wild guess is wrong. This is about businesses that don't want to cater to people they don't like. Like bakers, etc.monospaced
- Once again, your analogy falls apart. It's like asking why Rosa Parks wants to ride on a KKK bus in the first place. It's fucked up.monospaced
- It was 50 years ago. How long do you need to carry that story till the millennials start laughing at how old and out of touch you are.omg
- Brilliant Trump Supporter Kids Wreck Old Racist Idiot Adults In Atlanta Street Debate (REACTION) https://www.youtube.…omg
- It's an ANALOGY! Get it? Your argument that LGBT should avoid business that "hate their "kind," and that the law should protect that business ... GFYmonospaced
- Imagine a whole community hates gay people (yeah, this is real), and are allowed to have a no-gays-allowed business sector. Are you still telling them to avoid?monospaced
- Not sure the point of your article. I'm not old, out of touch, nor am I a racist idiot in a debate with a Trump supporter.monospaced
- it goes back to what IRNlun6 comment on infringing on one groups liberty to advance another'somg
- just the sky is falling scenario of hoards of businesses moving towards anti-gay establishments these days seems quite absurd.omg
- there's the church and there's the bedroom, and i don't see that clashing into anything more than a fight for marriage equality.omg
- Read the fucking bill. It grants rights to individuals & businesses to refuse service based on religious beliefs. It's also contrary to what Trump promised.monospaced
- It's disgusting how you support every thing this administration is doing. You're a lost cause.monospaced
- Abortion is another issue, and likely the largest, for wanting to refuse service based on religious beliefs.IRNlun6
- Also end-of-life treatments. There's many Religious Hospitals in the US.IRNlun6
- Denying service based on sexual orientation or race is really difficult to defend and as pointed out a violation of civil rights laws.IRNlun6
- oh no, don't get mono started on baby killing.omg
- yes, it would be a civil rights violation, unless this bill passes, which Trump is signing :/monospaced
- There's really only one business religious services have that they'd turn away customers. That would be marriage.omg
- They would be destroying the sanctity of their own product if they started selling weddings against their beliefs.omg
- For a total separation between church and state government shouldn't be involved unless it went against the constitution aka the first amendment.omg
- It seems Mono just wants to kill, destroy, mock other religious values. If you don't like their services, don't use them.omg
- In addition, this will also protect the religious values of the LGBT community.omg