Intelligent use of votes. They wanted just a tea party tantrum and it passed!
@lost in dcwhat exactly does the Edmond tuck act have to do with current
public accommodation laws that apply to private business's, you seem to
wish to ignore the very distinct difference between religions that have had and
continue to have immunity from such laws as long as it is within their
ecclesiastical duties and private sector commerce and religions acting outside
their ecclesiastical duties which has not had such protections since the public
accommodation laws were passed.
If something is wrong or immoral (such as discrimination based on race) it
should be discouraged by men but punished by God. When an act is criminal
(violence against another, based on race or otherwise) it should be discouraged
and punished by men (government) This is standard political theory
taught as the very reason that government has a right to exist in the first
place. The study of Ezra Taft Bensons "the proper role of government"
helps to shed light on this issue (his discourse was Given as a statesman not a
prophet but is filled with truth none the less)
Lost in DC good thoughts. I aggreeWanted to add it is a
constitutional right to be a bigoted jerk. If a lunch counter wants to
discriminate against any religious or racial class or sex or age they have the
freedom of conscience under the original intent of the 1st amendment to do so.
"But meddle not with any man for his religion: all governments
ought to permit every man to enjoy his religion unmolested. No man is authorized
to take away life in consequence of difference of religion, which all laws and
governments ought to tolerate and protect, right or wrong. Every man has a
natural, and, in our country, a constitutional right to be a false prophet, as
well as a true prophet. If I show, verily, that I have the truth of God, and
show that ninety-nine out of every hundred professing religious ministers are
false teachers, having no authority, while they pretend to hold the keys of
God’s kingdom on earth, and was to kill them because they are false
teachers, it would deluge the whole world with blood."- Joseph Smith
@ lost in DC: I find it interesting that in order to defend your position you
have to conflate the 2 distinct definitions of discriminate.Are you
unable to discriminate between discriminable forms of discrimination?
Utefan60the purpose of the 1st amendment is to prevent requirements such
as those you lay out from infringing on religious freedoms and matters of
conscience. Your argument is with the constitution and the first amendment, not
with people of conscience.Intolerance and bigotry against people of
conscience cloaked in support of gay rights is a lie and is still intolerance
and bigotry.Karen,what you are saying, then, is there is no
right or wrong. there is no up or down, there is no left or right, there is no
black or white, because what one person believes may differ from what another
person believes. you may believe that if you want, but I am obligated to speak
out against it if I feel it is harmful.If you choose Pepsi over
Coke, you are discriminating against Coke, that simple. Discrimination exists
everywhere and in everything.you say some discriminate between sins?
should there not be distinction between murder and jaywalking? they are both
sins if you want to define breaking a law as committing a sin. Should both have
the same punishment. Of COURSE there is discriminations between sins. Your
inability to see that only weakens your argument.
@ lost in DC"EVERY religion should be for discrimination.
discriminaiton against wrong and sin..."What undermines the
credibility of your position is that those who believe as you do also
"discriminate" between sins. Consider the source of the belief that
homosexuality is an "abomination." Do you also adhere to all other
proscriptions found in this or other similar texts? Why not? What is your
basis for determining which ones are valid and which are not?"And I see you want to eradicate the protections of the 1st
amendment."I am obligated to respect your right to believe
whatever you like (and to express it as hyperbolically as you like). I am not
obligated to respect the belief or to remain silent about it if I believe
Lost in DCThe day a business acquires a business license they are
required to follow the law. That includes serving Black people, single people,
Mormons, Jews and yes even LBGT people. This bill in Arizona is nothing more
than bigotry and hatred similar to what the Nazi's did to the Jewish
Community in Germany. The use of religion to deny business services
is a falsification and lie. Bigotry cloaked in religion is still bigotry!
Maudine,PRIVATE enterprise is NOT a public accomodationplease research the Edmunds-Tucker laws, then come talk to me again about how
government does not interfere in religion.The intolerance of those
demanding tolerance is mind-boggling.Karen,EVERY religion
should be for discrimination. discriminaiton against wrong and sin - don't
they preach against sin? Don't they preach against hate? Preaching
against anything is preaching discrimination. Preaching FOR something is
preaching discrimination against the opposite. And I see you want
to eradicate the protections of the 1st amendment.
The photo accompanying this story shows a man wearing a priest's collar
holding a sign that reads, "No religion should be for discrimination."
I don't know if that man is actually a priest, but I hope so. I would
really like to see America's religions be at least as moral as the secular
world. Meanwhile, the homophobia fomented by religion in African
countries is having dire effects. See stories on Uganda today. This religious-based belief has and will continue to get people killed until
it is eradicated.
Sorry that should be public
@lost in DC So please tell us exactly when "the religious"
were immune to pubc accomadation laws. Religions when acting within thier
ecclesiastical duties have been immune and continue to be even with recent anti
the protections of the 1st amendment are waning. The day of governmental
non-interference in matters of consience has passed. The religious will be
stripped of their constitutional protections.
The power of the so called "religious" is waning. The day that the so
called "religious" could dictate how a secular democratic representative
republic functions has passed. The so called "religious" will be
challenged and rightfully so on all of their the anti-constitutionalist