After the famous bakery incident where it refused to make the cake for a gay wedding couple, there was a huge debate of whether its their right or is it discrimination since their only right is whether to agree or disagree with the motive.
Now recently Missisipi governor signed a bill on the name of religious beliefs that anybody can deny the service to LGBTs if it clashes to their religious beliefs. (we know most religions do not advocate for homosexuality).
Re: Refusing services to LGBTs: A personal right or discrimination?
Now recently Missisipi governor signed a bill on the name of religious beliefs that anybody can deny the service to LGBTs if it clashes to their religious beliefs. (we know most religions do not advocate for homosexuality).
Pure discrimination. Hypocrites picking and choosing which religious beliefs they want to follow.
Ex. A man and a woman having sex outside marriage is also against most religions. I don't see the "God fearing Christians" taking steps to combat that. Let's deal with all the heterosexuals who are going against God's rules first by having sexual relations outside marriage, having kids out of wedlock. Let's start by denying services to those heterosexual couples who cannot produce a marriage license for their relationship. Once that's taken care of, then we can worry about the gays.
Re: Refusing services to LGBTs: A personal right or discrimination?
Agreed with all the above. Once again religion is being used to express personal hatred and bigotry, nothing else. As I was listening on NPR this morning, the state of Mississippi is immersed in problems. They are bottom low in economy. Poor job growth. Similarly worst healthcare and other issues. But look wut they are focusing on. Since I know a lil bit of how politics work here, every bill goes through enormous amount of lobbying effort, money spending and other resources. Such a waste on nothing but spreading hatred.
Re: Refusing services to LGBTs: A personal right or discrimination?
there is nothing that says one cant pick and choose from their religious faith. so i dont see anything wrong with this as long as religion is given importance, this is fair game.
want to stop this? accept that religion is bigoted nonsense unfit to be let out in society. not just when people behave based on it.
Re: Refusing services to LGBTs: A personal right or discrimination?
Of course it is discrimination.
But, individuals and private businesses should have the right to discriminate.
State should not discriminate because all are equal tax-paying citizens. But State should not impose non-discrimination on private parties.
Here comes the definition of "public places". It depends on law of the land and how it defines "public place". Shops and such places/services are meant for general public so you shouldn't descriminate there. All people are availing the service and you discriminate a some out of your religious belief is not fair.
Re: Refusing services to LGBTs: A personal right or discrimination?
do you have a logical argument?
or do you just want to make a snow man?
I think the logics are mentioned very well in all posts above yours. But then your post said if you hv a termite, burn the house. The argument becomes dead right then
Re: Refusing services to LGBTs: A personal right or discrimination?
Queer, your lack of understanding of analogies or the subject so as to say isnt anybody else’s fault.
As far as religions are concerned. The religions “dont approve” LGBTs but they dont “hate” them. Huge difference!
Just like clerics twist religious teachings for their own interest, you are doing the same here by not saying hey stop hatred on the name of religion you are rather suggesting to chop off the religion altogether. Thats fine, you can do wutever u want. but to me there doesnt seem to be any difference between you two.
Anywaz, as i said you can surely carry on your lil hate for religion campaign, totally fine with me.
Re: Refusing services to LGBTs: A personal right or discrimination?
Denying services to others based on my religious beliefs is hypocrisy. If I deny service to them then to be fair, I should stop accepting services from them. I should start by throwing away every Apple product that i have cause it's made by a company who is run by a gay
Re: Refusing services to LGBTs: A personal right or discrimination?
As far as religions are concerned. The religions "dont approve" LGBTs but they dont "hate" them. Huge difference!
Really? Lets see - the religion in question here is Christianity.
Here is what the Bible says:
1 Corinthians 6:9–10.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Basically classifies homosexuals with criminals. And I for one would be convinced not to let a criminal into my establishment of business. Why blame the believer, when scripture is so hateful and vile?
Re: Refusing services to LGBTs: A personal right or discrimination?
Is'nt it sad that we are having these kind of arguments. How should it matter to me if the person that I am serving is Gay. It is the person's choice and I have no issues in accepting them for what they are. Why should I be bothered about what the person does in his bedroom with another consenting adult.
We have no qualms in serving rapists etc. Our morality acts up when we serve Gay people. what kind of a crap is that.
Re: Refusing services to LGBTs: A personal right or discrimination?
:) Queer, your lack of understanding of analogies or the subject so as to say isnt anybody else's fault.
As far as religions are concerned. ** The religions "dont approve" LGBTs but they dont "hate" them. Huge difference! **
Just thinking... I have heard that some religions punish homosexuals with death. If that is not "HATE", I am wondering what would have happened if indeed there was "HATE".
Queer, your lack of understanding of analogies or the subject so as to say isnt anybody else’s fault.
