On the one hand, no doctor has to perform an abortion based on religious objection. No pharmacist has to fill a prescription because of any objection. Why would any other business by any different. On the other hand, I don't recall reading that Jesus turned away anyone because of what they'd done. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Is this really an answerable question?
Submitted by John Bonnell (not verified) : Apr 2, 2015 10:02am
First off somebody needs to explain what the bill says. I hear all this uproar about it and all the different sides but nobody has explained what it says straight up. It sounds like political BS me from what I have heard so far. How about we take care of the homeless vets and the stink over the VA health system first and leave all this stuff on the back burner for now.
Submitted by Fred C. (not verified) : Apr 2, 2015 2:52pm
Why do we need this legislation when freedom of religion is granted under the U.S. Constitution???? Political BS is getting too deep in this country!!!!!!!
Submitted by Rick Bennison (not verified) : Apr 2, 2015 3:16pm
Companies are being fined out of existence because of their religious beliefs. This happened to a florist in (I believe) Washington state. And a family who held wedding receptions and other parties on their farm was severely fined by the government and sued by the lesbians whose reception they declined to hold. I do not feel this is right. It looks to me like the "gays" go around trying to find someone who refuses to serve them so they can sue. They are nuts!
Submitted by Cora (not verified) : Apr 2, 2015 3:50pm
I suppose you see this as completely different from the Black people who purposely sat down at lunch counters which were clearly labeled "Whites Only".
ABSOLUTELY! I do not comprehend what homosexuals are complaining about. They have all of the "rights" anyone else has. If they want have sexual relations with those of their same sex, go ahead. No need to display it publicly.
Doc
Rick, The 1973 Federal law passed almost unanimously by Congress and signed by that flaming right-winger President Bill Clinton was passed to deal with competing interests - freedom of religious expression versus laws designed to regulate "bad" behavior like growing your hair too long or using peyote in religious practices. Religion won a place. Now religion which is protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights takes second place to Gay Rights which is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or subsequent amendments. P.S. The next time you vote remember there may not be a candidate who perfectly fits your beliefs but one always has to be the lesser of two or three evils.
Submitted by Robert I. Finke... (not verified) : Apr 2, 2015 4:35pm
Let's look at how rhe U.S. military forces handled this issue. It took many years before the Pentagon grudgingly accepted the fact that a significant number of soldiers, sailors and marines were gay -- and entitled to equal treatment in all respects. Once that rule was established (more or less), the military grew stronger. The current wave of "states-rights" type legislation, to selectively
block gays from public services, is vigorously opposed by our main corporations, major sports organizations, and most business enterprises. The sponsors of such legislation don't seem to include the backing of major religious organizations, who I would think would be enthusiastically endorsing these political actions if they were a true reflection of the views of the religious community majority.
Submitted by Richard Hofacker (not verified) : Apr 2, 2015 4:27pm
Richard, I believe that you misinterpret or misunderstand these "states rights" type legislation. Please see my comment above. The 1973 Religious Freedom Act or whatever applies only to the Federal government and not to the states. The legislation passed by Indiana and 19 or 20 other states basically takes a federal law and makes it applicable to the individual state. It really just states that a state must have a "compelling interest" which cannot be achieved any other way in order to violate a person's religious beliefs. Now if the only bakery in 100 miles refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay couple that's a problem. But if there are 5 or 10 bakeries in the community and one refuses to serve the couple based on religious beliefs objections to gay marriage, that's another issue if I have this issue legally right.
Submitted by Robert I Finkel... (not verified) : Apr 2, 2015 4:43pm
Why do we need laws to govern rights??? The bill of rights is more than ample to cover any situation. It is the miss-guided federal judges that decide what is presently in style or acceptable in that place and time that screws it up. Somewhere in the past they forgot what "Shall not be infringed" means.
All of these comments, and others on many related subjects, indicates quite clearly how badly divided our nation has become. I fear that is a mortal wound to the spiritual health of America.
Submitted by William Horick (not verified) : Apr 2, 2015 5:19pm
Just another push by the Liberals/gays to advance thier rights agenda by force onto the mainstream society by way of the government activist politicians in Washington. A business should have the right to serve who they want when they want I.e. Shirts,shoes,dogs,cloths,ect. Not all people use good sense or thier brain,you have to know that. Check out the constitution it spells out freedom of the people,not just one group.
Submitted by Bob K. (not verified) : Apr 2, 2015 5:23pm
Just another push by the Liberals/gays to advance thier rights agenda by force onto the mainstream society by way of the government activist politicians in Washington. A business should have the right to serve who they want when they want I.e. Shirts,shoes,dogs,cloths,ect. Not all people use good sense or thier brain,you have to know that. Check out the constitution it spells out freedom of the people,not just one group.
Submitted by Bob K. (not verified) : Apr 2, 2015 5:23pm
Misunderstood Yes. The lates round of RFRA's goes beyond the reach of the original federal restrictions. It in 3 of the new 5 allows for professional and civil services withheld or not to be provided without penalty. In 2 it opens a question the right to commit a violent crime under the pretext of freedom from the law. These are things never allowed in the original statutes the other 19 states have.
Submitted by Nicole S. (not verified) : Apr 2, 2015 6:00pm
If a gay owned designer firm was approached by a Christian to make designs for the theme "Why natural processes favor heterosexuality", and if the owner felt his own morality was threatened, should he be forced with boycotts/intimidation of customers and such to do the job just like the customer wanted it or risk losing his business? So why are Christians targeted? Can you imagine that same type of reaction against a Muslim? To their credit, Muslims defend themselves, as we all should. Christians would not force the gay business to place their stamp of approval on anything so contrary to their lifestyle even if they could because that would not be love/free will. Likewise, Christians don't want to put their stamp of approval on anything they consider immoral.
Submitted by Linn Salinas (not verified) : Apr 2, 2015 6:10pm
Whatever I decide to believe about religious doctrines or deities is private. I have no right to impose any of my beliefs on anybody else, AND you should not impose whatever you want to believe on me.
There is no proof that religious doctrine of any kind is actually fact--many of us are programed to believe many things that may not be true at all--some of us decide to believe this stuff until our rational brains reject this stuff as facts. It is faith, not fact!!
We need to completely separate religion doctrine from becoming civil laws. Believe privately whatever you want to, but civil law should be the only laws that are enforceable. Can you imagine the antisocial behavior of some who would like the government to enforce any particular beliefs---look at the Middle East as an example---we DO NOT want clerics making civil laws in the USA. Some Americans are trying to force others to adhere to whatever THEY choose to believe --this is wrong--and is causing a problem here in the USA right now. Use your logic and brains to let others believe whatever they want to--even if it seems against whatever you chose to believe. Believing or not is a CHOICE-- and it does not have to make sense to everyone else. Let it be!!!
Submitted by k2 (not verified) : Apr 2, 2015 8:08pm
Operating a business or going to work is NOT a religious act. We are not allowed to sell or not sell any product or service because we don't like another's religion or life.
The controversial cases are when the buyer or the seller tries to insult the other. That is not part of a normal business transaction. Demanding the other accept the insult is wrong.
Putting your religion as an equation in a business transaction is wrong.
NO ONE HAS BEEN OBSTRUCTED FROM ATTENDING ANY CHURCH/TEMPLE TO ACTUALLY PRACTICE RELIGION.
Submitted by William Cubley (not verified) : Apr 3, 2015 4:22pm
I would not want a law telling a business it has to provide a service to me or anyone else they object to. This is a free country. If I owned a business, I would want to have the right to determine who I do and do not serve...such as the KKK, Serpent worshipers, bigots, and/or mean people.
If a business does not want my money because they do not agree with my lifestyle then I will go to a business that does. There are plenty out there.
Submitted by Tracey (not verified) : Apr 4, 2015 10:41am
Very simply your thoughts seem to be acceptable on the surface. How do you justify refusing in your store to sell meat to me because you know that I am a practicing vegetarian? Do you sell pork to someone who you know is a practicing Muslim or Jew? Does not each of us have the right to eat bacon or shellfish even if we are Jewish? You are not my designated dictator and I am not dictating to you either. I see your point, but where do we draw the line? A business open to the public can not dictate who they will sell to based on personal biases.
Submitted by K2 (not verified) : Apr 6, 2015 3:03pm
Comments
On the one hand, no doctor
On the one hand, no doctor has to perform an abortion based on religious objection. No pharmacist has to fill a prescription because of any objection. Why would any other business by any different. On the other hand, I don't recall reading that Jesus turned away anyone because of what they'd done. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Is this really an answerable question?
First off somebody needs to
First off somebody needs to explain what the bill says. I hear all this uproar about it and all the different sides but nobody has explained what it says straight up. It sounds like political BS me from what I have heard so far. How about we take care of the homeless vets and the stink over the VA health system first and leave all this stuff on the back burner for now.
Why do we need this
Why do we need this legislation when freedom of religion is granted under the U.S. Constitution???? Political BS is getting too deep in this country!!!!!!!
Companies are being fined out
Companies are being fined out of existence because of their religious beliefs. This happened to a florist in (I believe) Washington state. And a family who held wedding receptions and other parties on their farm was severely fined by the government and sued by the lesbians whose reception they declined to hold. I do not feel this is right. It looks to me like the "gays" go around trying to find someone who refuses to serve them so they can sue. They are nuts!
Yep!
Yep!
I suppose you see this as
I suppose you see this as completely different from the Black people who purposely sat down at lunch counters which were clearly labeled "Whites Only".
ABSOLUTELY! I do not
ABSOLUTELY! I do not comprehend what homosexuals are complaining about. They have all of the "rights" anyone else has. If they want have sexual relations with those of their same sex, go ahead. No need to display it publicly.
Doc
Rick, The 1973 Federal law
Rick, The 1973 Federal law passed almost unanimously by Congress and signed by that flaming right-winger President Bill Clinton was passed to deal with competing interests - freedom of religious expression versus laws designed to regulate "bad" behavior like growing your hair too long or using peyote in religious practices. Religion won a place. Now religion which is protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights takes second place to Gay Rights which is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or subsequent amendments. P.S. The next time you vote remember there may not be a candidate who perfectly fits your beliefs but one always has to be the lesser of two or three evils.
Let's look at how rhe U.S.
Let's look at how rhe U.S. military forces handled this issue. It took many years before the Pentagon grudgingly accepted the fact that a significant number of soldiers, sailors and marines were gay -- and entitled to equal treatment in all respects. Once that rule was established (more or less), the military grew stronger. The current wave of "states-rights" type legislation, to selectively
block gays from public services, is vigorously opposed by our main corporations, major sports organizations, and most business enterprises. The sponsors of such legislation don't seem to include the backing of major religious organizations, who I would think would be enthusiastically endorsing these political actions if they were a true reflection of the views of the religious community majority.
Richard, I believe that you
Richard, I believe that you misinterpret or misunderstand these "states rights" type legislation. Please see my comment above. The 1973 Religious Freedom Act or whatever applies only to the Federal government and not to the states. The legislation passed by Indiana and 19 or 20 other states basically takes a federal law and makes it applicable to the individual state. It really just states that a state must have a "compelling interest" which cannot be achieved any other way in order to violate a person's religious beliefs. Now if the only bakery in 100 miles refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay couple that's a problem. But if there are 5 or 10 bakeries in the community and one refuses to serve the couple based on religious beliefs objections to gay marriage, that's another issue if I have this issue legally right.
Well stated sir!
Well stated sir!
If a KKK member wanted a cake
If a KKK member wanted a cake that said something derogatory about black people or Jews, should the business be forced to make it?
Why do we need laws to govern
Why do we need laws to govern rights??? The bill of rights is more than ample to cover any situation. It is the miss-guided federal judges that decide what is presently in style or acceptable in that place and time that screws it up. Somewhere in the past they forgot what "Shall not be infringed" means.
All of these comments, and
All of these comments, and others on many related subjects, indicates quite clearly how badly divided our nation has become. I fear that is a mortal wound to the spiritual health of America.
Just another push by the
Just another push by the Liberals/gays to advance thier rights agenda by force onto the mainstream society by way of the government activist politicians in Washington. A business should have the right to serve who they want when they want I.e. Shirts,shoes,dogs,cloths,ect. Not all people use good sense or thier brain,you have to know that. Check out the constitution it spells out freedom of the people,not just one group.
Just another push by the
Just another push by the Liberals/gays to advance thier rights agenda by force onto the mainstream society by way of the government activist politicians in Washington. A business should have the right to serve who they want when they want I.e. Shirts,shoes,dogs,cloths,ect. Not all people use good sense or thier brain,you have to know that. Check out the constitution it spells out freedom of the people,not just one group.
Misunderstood Yes. The lates
Misunderstood Yes. The lates round of RFRA's goes beyond the reach of the original federal restrictions. It in 3 of the new 5 allows for professional and civil services withheld or not to be provided without penalty. In 2 it opens a question the right to commit a violent crime under the pretext of freedom from the law. These are things never allowed in the original statutes the other 19 states have.
If a gay owned designer firm
If a gay owned designer firm was approached by a Christian to make designs for the theme "Why natural processes favor heterosexuality", and if the owner felt his own morality was threatened, should he be forced with boycotts/intimidation of customers and such to do the job just like the customer wanted it or risk losing his business? So why are Christians targeted? Can you imagine that same type of reaction against a Muslim? To their credit, Muslims defend themselves, as we all should. Christians would not force the gay business to place their stamp of approval on anything so contrary to their lifestyle even if they could because that would not be love/free will. Likewise, Christians don't want to put their stamp of approval on anything they consider immoral.
Whatever I decide to believe
Whatever I decide to believe about religious doctrines or deities is private. I have no right to impose any of my beliefs on anybody else, AND you should not impose whatever you want to believe on me.
There is no proof that religious doctrine of any kind is actually fact--many of us are programed to believe many things that may not be true at all--some of us decide to believe this stuff until our rational brains reject this stuff as facts. It is faith, not fact!!
We need to completely separate religion doctrine from becoming civil laws. Believe privately whatever you want to, but civil law should be the only laws that are enforceable. Can you imagine the antisocial behavior of some who would like the government to enforce any particular beliefs---look at the Middle East as an example---we DO NOT want clerics making civil laws in the USA. Some Americans are trying to force others to adhere to whatever THEY choose to believe --this is wrong--and is causing a problem here in the USA right now. Use your logic and brains to let others believe whatever they want to--even if it seems against whatever you chose to believe. Believing or not is a CHOICE-- and it does not have to make sense to everyone else. Let it be!!!
Operating a business or going
Operating a business or going to work is NOT a religious act. We are not allowed to sell or not sell any product or service because we don't like another's religion or life.
The controversial cases are when the buyer or the seller tries to insult the other. That is not part of a normal business transaction. Demanding the other accept the insult is wrong.
Putting your religion as an equation in a business transaction is wrong.
NO ONE HAS BEEN OBSTRUCTED FROM ATTENDING ANY CHURCH/TEMPLE TO ACTUALLY PRACTICE RELIGION.
I would not want a law
I would not want a law telling a business it has to provide a service to me or anyone else they object to. This is a free country. If I owned a business, I would want to have the right to determine who I do and do not serve...such as the KKK, Serpent worshipers, bigots, and/or mean people.
If a business does not want my money because they do not agree with my lifestyle then I will go to a business that does. There are plenty out there.
Very simply your thoughts
Very simply your thoughts seem to be acceptable on the surface. How do you justify refusing in your store to sell meat to me because you know that I am a practicing vegetarian? Do you sell pork to someone who you know is a practicing Muslim or Jew? Does not each of us have the right to eat bacon or shellfish even if we are Jewish? You are not my designated dictator and I am not dictating to you either. I see your point, but where do we draw the line? A business open to the public can not dictate who they will sell to based on personal biases.