So called Religious Liberty Bills

1. 61

   Disappearingheadposted 9 years ago

   From this side of the pond it looks like the American religious right want carte blanch right to discriminate against people. I thought we lived in the 21st century.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      For the religious right, it is more like the 19th. I have read several articles where they advocate their rights as parents over children, withholding medical care and in so many ways treating children like property.
      
      Check this out-
      
      http://www.alternet.org/belief/glaring- … ristianity
      
      The political right, are right about one thing, their nuts!!

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Disappearingheadposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         It comes down to adhering to what is written because it was dictated by God is far more important than critical thinking.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            You can be sure that their interpretation of scripture is always the wrong one.

            replyreport
2. 61

   Epleeba1posted 9 years ago

   Personally, If I owned a business I can think of no group I would routinely deny service (with the possible exception of professional politicians). Having said that, I can see how a Muslim business owner might want to deny service to Jews or a Pentecostal business owner might want to refuse service to atheists. This is a personal choice of the business owner. I knew a contractor who decided not to do business with Lawyers or Doctors after some very bad experiences with both. He felt justified in his position and I could see his point. This type of decision is a personal decision and I believe it is a person's right.
   
   Laws like the Indiana law just passed make these exclusion decisions legal (in the state - at least). I believe a business doing no business with the Federal government or across state lines should have this right. The Federal protections against discrimination should be enforced when an entity does business with any Federal agency. If a business decides to exercise these exclusion options, there must be a public announcement of the fact. If a business is shareholder-owned a public vote by shareholders should be required before exclusion rights are enacted. The public needs to know that the business is owned and controlled by confirmed, stupid, ignorant bigots!

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      People use to say that about racial and religious minorities. I say that businesses if they are a public accomodation must serve everyone equally. CRA of 1964 makes that a requirement.
      
      BTW, hope you find that programming job!

      replyreport
   2. 65

      stvpaulsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It's people like Eplleeba1 who give democrats a bad reputation among all people by calling ones he doesn't know: "confirmed, stupid, ignorant bigots!  This man needs to learn some common sense and decency... Even if he does not believe in a God.  Most likely, he's some latent tendencies.

      replyreport