Anti-LGBT/Religious Freedom Laws

If you don't let churches set up their own standards of faith and practice, what is the point of a church? The purpose of a church is building faith and encouraging lives of a certain sort. The purpose of a business is nothing of the sort. I've had two churches reject me from membership within the last year because I'm not a baptist, and while I think that particular constraint on membership comes out of bad theology, they are perfectly within their rights. If Food Lion refused to sell me beer because I wasn't a baptist, that would be ridiculous (in more ways than one. . . but I mean legally).

If you're trying to say that churches can't discriminate based on religion, you've basically just outlawed churches.

 

No alternative pharmacy, or grocery store, or hardware store, or whatever. Sometimes the closest alternative is hours away.

Again, we need to remove this from being an issue concerning gays exclusively. This was the same sort of conversation for desegregation. I get that it isn't a clean line on these things.

 

Now we're getting somewhere.


Kidding, that would be the complete failure of a free society.

 

I think ending all marriage benefits, and let all private owned businesses or any individual have the freedom to associate anyway they want too would solve all of this, but that's not going to happen.

I'd rather know if I'm doing business with a bigot, racist, or any other number of things I object with so I can take my business else where.

 

The instances that get all the publicity, which I understand don't represent the entirety, don't ever seem to be that type of situation. More about people getting outraged then getting on the news.

 

Yes, welcome to 2016 America. Substance is hard, knee-jerk emotion is easy.

 

Nah, better to force opinions on folks. It's the progressive liberal way.

 

I'm inclined to think this sort of thing would sort itself out, too. In today's world it's just not all that popular to exclude people.

 

So you re going with freedom.

 

I'm saying that if society has said something in morally reprehensible or wrong and deem it illegal, it should be illegal. Period. You're argument makes it sound like we give religion free reign in the name of religion freedom, but we don't. Most places have outlawed pagan animal sacrifices even though there are some that still want to do it, we certainly don't allow human sacrifices which has been part of past religions, polygamy is illegal despite the fact that its part of the church of mormon. Using the thin veil of religion to allow an illegal act is hypocritical. Either its wrong and we enforce the law, or its not and there is no law against it. There should be no selective enforcement.

I'm Libertarian and would prefer to vote with my dollars, but if society is going to pass a law it better damn well apply to all and be enforced evenly without special treatment.

 

If churches are allowed to discriminate then there is always the possibility that all the local churches will discriminate against you leaving you with no option. There are still remote areas where the church could be someone's only option.

 

Well, we could just all agree that the right to life is preeminent, and shall not be infringed, unless in cases where it directly and imminently endangers the life of the mother, or where the pregnancy occurred as a result of rape and/or incest.

That'd give the pro-baby killing contingent every protection they claim to require, and would reduce abortions by, oh, 99% or so?

But i'm getting out of the abortion business, and all other right to life / die issues, too. The less people around, the fewer dumbasses I have to pay for, drive behind and listen to. Kill'em all.

I'm a unifier, IP. I'm a unifier.

 

It's made il/legal so as to force a conformity of belief. And, it's hard to argue that forcible acceptance doesn't work.

It's widely known that GCB's lofty and well-liked stature only results from the passage of the "All Gay People Must be Well-liked on All Message Boards" laws.

You get my point.

 

You misunderstand. The best option is no church.

 

You obviously don't understand what the pro-choice side is requiring.

I think it'd be far simpler for everyone to just agree to mind everyone else's business and recognize the sovereignty of each person's own body.

 

I'm with you there, I just don't understand the exception that they're granted.

 

The body is God's temple, afterall.

 

That's never the answer. While a boisterously self-serving and naive approach, it is no answer for the vast majority of Americans.

Nor will it ever be. You really should be more tolerant of Christians, and other people of religious faith, IP.

Painting with broad brushes and what-not.

 

Oh, and would you agree with my assessment that 99% of all abortions have nothing whatsoever to do with the mother's life, rape or incest?

99% of the time, it's just a reset for irresponsible women, no?

 

Nobody minds his own business like IP.