They are at it.. again... in iOwa

[sportage]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...e-aims-to-protect-same-sex-marriage-objectors

"Bill in Iowa House aims to protect same-sex marriage objectors"

What the bill says:

"- A religious corporation, association, educational institution, society, charity or fraternal organization, or person employed by such entities, would not be required to treat a marriage as valid. They also could deny goods, services or accommodations if the marriage violated a person's religious beliefs.
- An individual, small business or sole proprietor would not be required to provide goods or services "that assist or promote the solemnization or celebration of a marriage." This includes benefits to the spouse of an employee, housing to a married couple and reproductive services.
- People or businesses that refuse to provide services or benefits based upon religious convictions would be able to do so without facing civil claims."

Does anyone else find this a bit disturbing?
Remind anyone of how it all started over in Germany back in 1938?
Sound familiar?

A little background...
Republicans were successful, using same sex marriage as the wedge issue, in removing three of the iOwa supreme court justices up for retention. And voting out iOwa's one term democrat governor.
Republicans now control the iOwa house of reps.
Democrats hold control of the senate by two seats.

 

[ericlp]

That's organized religion for you. Might as well be passing a bill that gives these tards that attend church every sunday XX amount of money.

I guess all I can say is I'm glad I don't live in that state!

 

[Craig234]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...e-aims-to-protect-same-sex-marriage-objectors

"Bill in Iowa House aims to protect same-sex marriage objectors"

What the bill says:

"- A religious corporation, association, educational institution, society, charity or fraternal organization, or person employed by such entities, would not be required to treat a marriage as valid. They also could deny goods, services or accommodations if the marriage violated a person's religious beliefs.
- An individual, small business or sole proprietor would not be required to provide goods or services "that assist or promote the solemnization or celebration of a marriage." This includes benefits to the spouse of an employee, housing to a married couple and reproductive services.
- People or businesses that refuse to provide services or benefits based upon religious convictions would be able to do so without facing civil claims."

Does anyone else find this a bit disturbing?
Remind anyone of how it all started over in Germany back in 1938?
Sound familiar?

A little background...
Republicans were successful, using same sex marriage as the wedge issue, in removing three of the iOwa supreme court justices up for retention. And voting out iOwa's one term democrat governor.
Republicans now control the iOwa house of reps.
Democrats hold control of the senate by two seats.

The defense of bigots bill. It's morally abhorrent.

 

[trenchfoot]

Seems like a classic case of State's rights vs. Fed law with a healthy dose of 1st Amendment issues thrown in the mix. Interesting.

Imagine that: A 1st Amendment right guaranteeing freedom of religion is used to discriminate and deny freedoms to others.

That dog don't hunt.

 

[Texashiker]

The defense of bigots bill.

Its a defense of freedoms bill. Its allowing people to make their own decisions and believe the way they want to.

It's morally abhorrent.

The only thing immoral is when liberals vote, or even worse, get into office.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Its a defense of freedoms bill. Its allowing people to make their own decisions and believe the way they want to.

The problem is that they are not allowing people to make their decision.
they are forcing their decisions on someone else.

 

[Texashiker]

The problem is that they are not allowing people to make their decision.
they are forcing their decisions on someone else.

Doesn't that already happen everyday?

The county and town where I live has several restrictions on the sales of alcohol. We could not even buy beer or wine in the city limits until 6 months ago. To buy whiskey, we still have to drive outside the county. Why? Because of the religious right is imposing their will on everyone else. If I want to buy a bottle of jack Daniels and have a drink, I dont need some religious group getting in the way.

Why can't men have more then 1 wife? Because certain people / religious beliefs have said no.

Why is marijuana illegal? Because someone somewhere decided it was bad.

If you live outside the USA, it gets even worse.

Are we going to call the people that pass laws restricting alcohol sales bigots?

Are we going to call people that keep marijuana illegal bigots?

There are long list of examples of injustice, but we are not going to criticize them are we? Just add actions against gay rights to the list.

 

[Craig234]

Its a defense of freedoms bill. Its allowing people to make their own decisions and believe the way they want to.

The only freedom being protected is the freedom to be a bigot and discriminate against gays.

It's like the old 'your freedom to swing your arm stops at your neighbor's face'. They are demanding the 'freedom' to swing their arms into the face of gays.

You are not telling the truth when you say their right to believe what they want is being threatened, or even to make their OWN decisions not discriminating against others.

The only thing immoral is when liberals vote, or even worse, get into office.

You have that backwards, Texas guy.

No surprise. You don't know a thing about morality IMO.

What do you on Martin Luther King's holiday, cry or protest?

 

[Texashiker]

What do you on Martin Luther King's holiday, cry or protest?

I got the day off, so I sat at home and played Left 4 Dead 2.

~~~~~~~~~

Can I go to the local government and call them bigots because I can not buy whiskey in the city limits?

Regardless of where you live, someone group is going to be imposing their will on other people. Whether its gay rights, sale of liquor,,,,, or anything else, there is always someone complaining about something.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Its a defense of freedoms bill. Its allowing people to make their own decisions and believe the way they want to.






The only thing immoral is when liberals vote, or even worse, get into office.

Refusing service on religious grounds isn't freedom - it's bigotry. Sexual orientation should be a protected class just like race and ethnicity, simply because most people can't help it.

 

[Craig234]

Doesn't that already happen everyday?

The county and town where I live has several restrictions on the sales of alcohol. We could not even buy beer or wine in the city limits until 6 months ago. To buy whiskey, we still have to drive outside the county. Why? Because of the religious right is imposing their will on everyone else. If I want to buy a bottle of jack Daniels and have a drink, I dont need some religious group getting in the way.

Why can't men have more then 1 wife? Because certain people / religious beliefs have said no.

Why is marijuana illegal? Because someone somewhere decided it was bad.

If you live outside the USA, it gets even worse.

Are we going to call the people that pass laws restricting alcohol sales bigots?

Are we going to call people that keep marijuana illegal bigots?

There are long list of examples of injustice, but we are not going to criticize them are we? Just add actions against gay rights to the list.

Since you don't understand morals or bigotry, your comments are no surprise.

The motive between banning or restricting a substance because of perceived harm - such as the health problems, violence, drunk driving, etc. alcohol can bring - whether reasonable or misguided - are not the same type of motive as bigotry against a group of people such as gays. There is no 'harm' behind the gay bigotry, just hate.

Similarly, marijuana laws can be debated - but they're not the same motive.

You are just making false analogies because you are confused. How about letting blacks eat at restaurants? Should we let restaurants ban them and 'add it to the list'?

 

[raymond56]

"People or businesses that refuse to provide services or benefits based upon religious convictions would be able to do so without facing civil claims."

I've seen on the walls of establishments all of my 55 years on this earth the sign that says: We Reserve "The Right To Refuse Service"
Be it this reason or that reason. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Where do we draw the line?
If you own the business then you own the right to run it. Am I for the issue here or against. Neither. The freedom to own and run a business is just that! Freedom! do we like our freedom?

 

[Craig234]

"People or businesses that refuse to provide services or benefits based upon religious convictions would be able to do so without facing civil claims."

I've seen on the walls of establishments all of my 55 years on this earth the sign that says: We Reserve "The Right To Refuse Service"
Be it this reason or that reason. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Where do we draw the line?
If you own the business then you own the right to run it. Am I for the issue here or against. Neither. The freedom to own and run a business is just that! Freedom! do we like our freedom?

The right not to be discriminate against - for your race, sexual orientation, gender, whatever - outweighs the right to discriminate against people for those things.

You are advocating immoral bigotry here by your post. 'Do we like our freedom?' Who's "we"? Do YOU face being discriminated against as a black, a gay, etc.?

The freedom to equal rights is the freedom to protect. You are an ENEMY of freedom if you twist the word to say 'freedom to deny freedom to others is freedom'.

 

[Texashiker]

The motive between banning or restricting a substance because of perceived harm - such as the health problems, violence, drunk driving, etc. alcohol can bring - whether reasonable or misguided - are not the same type of motive as bigotry against a group of people such as gays. There is no 'harm' behind the gay bigotry, just hate.

Keywords highlights above

Some people perceive gays as being harmful to society. So their actions on restricting gays are justified.

 

[Craig234]

Keywords highlights above

Some people perceive gays as being harmful to society. So their actions on restricting gays are justified.

Wrong. There has to be some reasonable basis. It might be right or wrong in degree, but you can't deny equality morally for bigotry.

How about I think you are harmful to society, so I shoot you? That's my 'freedom' by your logic, and you are denying my rights if you say I can't legally do that.

What is the 'harm' gays cause society? The 'harm' is from the bigots against gays, just as it was from the bigots against blacks and others. Prove the 'harm'.

And a substance like marijuana doesn't have the same rights as people. I feel like I'm talking to a Taliban.

 

[soundforbjt]

Not surprising since I saw yesterday on Faux News, a clip from Luntz asking 25 Iowans how many agreed with one of the persons there who thought Obama was a muslim.

10 out of 25 thought he was. Nearly half of them are crazy!!!

I diots
O ut
W andering
A round

 

[Texashiker]

How about I think you are harmful to society, so I shoot you? That's my 'freedom' by your logic, and you are denying my rights if you say I can't legally do that.

Your the one who used the "harmful" example first, not me. So answer your own question.

What is the 'harm' gays cause society? The 'harm' is from the bigots against gays, just as it was from the bigots against blacks and others. Prove the 'harm'.

Its the perceived harm - its like calling everyone that drinks an alcoholic, or everyone that smokes a drug head.

But for actual scientific proven facts, on how gays harm society - gay men have the highest HIV rates of any other demographic group.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I do not agree with restricting gay rights, but I do support the rights of local and state governments to pass such restrictions. If we start telling local and state governments what kind of restrictions they can and can not pass, whats next?

If the people do not like the laws, elect the people into government to get them changed. And it seems that the anti-gay people have been elected into office.

Even if such anti-gay rights laws are passed, maybe the day will come when the tide will turn, and those laws are struck down.

 

[CPA]

Personally, I don't think a private business owner should be forced to sell to anyone for any reason. I don't think it's a smart decision by a business owner to limit their market, but I don't think the government should be telling business owner's who they should sell to.

 

[Craig234]

Your the one who used the "harmful" example first, not me. So answer your own question.

I already did, repeatedly Try reading what I said.

'Right to swing your arm ending at neighbor's face', 'freedom is freedom from discrimination, not freedom to hurt others with discrimination', etc.

How many times do you need me to repeat for you?

Its the perceived harm - its like calling everyone that drinks an alcoholic, or everyone that smokes a drug head.

We let those people have rights, too, if they aren't causing a problem. Aren't a lot of "no alcoholics allowed" signs in restaurants - just a ban on people who are drunk.

But of course, those are things people choose to do as well, unlike sexual orientation.

But for actual scientific proven facts, on how gays harm society - gay men have the highest HIV rates of any other demographic group.

You convinced me, gay men with HIV should not be allowed to inject their blood into you.

Now, how are gays - most of whom do NOT have HIV, but including those who do - harming you by sitting at the table next to you at the restaurant?

I do not agree with restricting gay rights, but I do support the rights of local and state governments to pass such restrictions.

You're wrong to support the legalization of discrimination.

How about I don't support you being shot, but I support the right to pass laws sayingyou can be shot?

If we start telling local and state governments what kind of restrictions they can and can not pass, whats next?

Everyone making slippery slope arguments? Dogs and cats being in Congress? The overthrow of the US by Lady Gaga followers?

If the people do not like the laws, elect the people into government to get them changed. And it seems that the anti-gay people have been elected into office.

Even if such anti-gay rights laws are passed, maybe the day will come when the tide will turn, and those laws are struck down.

Wrong. Discrimination needs to be ILLEGAL - not LEGAL where the majority can pass any discrimination it wants.

Your argument is no different that keeping segregation - or even slavery - legal - just 'elect people who pass laws against it if you don't like it'.

You don't know a think about individual rights, and are an embarrassment as a citizen.

 

[Craig234]

Personally, I don't think a private business owner should be forced to sell to anyone for any reason. I don't think it's a smart decision by a business owner to limit their market, but I don't think the government should be telling business owner's who they should sell to.

And you are wrong, and a defender of bigotry. Let me guess, are you the target of the bigotry you defend, are you black or gay?

It's repulsive that these debates settled in the 60's are returning among our newly ignorant idiot demographic. Hey, let's ban interracial marriage - if a majority wants.

 

[IBMer]

But for actual scientific proven facts, on how gays harm society - gay men have the highest HIV rates of any other demographic group.

African Americans have a higher HIV rate than any other racial demographic, should they also have laws that make it so private businesses are able to choose not to service or provide products to them?

NM, you are probably a straight white guy, so you have no idea what it is to be discriminated against.

 

[wuliheron]

I'm sure the KKK membership would be interested to hear they have the legal right to refuse service to people based on religious grounds. No doubt they would apply for legal recognition as a church and countless others would follow in their steps. It's just another variation on the sodomy laws that won't hold up in court.

As such it could be construed as a sign that the Republicans are loosing ground on this issue and resorting to desperate measures they know perfectly well are likely to fail. Desperate people resort to desperate measures and people living in denial can be among the most desperate of all.

 

[Texashiker]

You're wrong to support the legalization of discrimination.

I support the rights of state and local governments to pass the laws that they see fit.

If the people do not like the laws, take action - vote or move.

 

[CPA]

And you are wrong, and a defender of bigotry. Let me guess, are you the target of the bigotry you defend, are you black or gay?

It's repulsive that these debates settled in the 60's are returning among our newly ignorant idiot demographic. Hey, let's ban interracial marriage - if a majority wants.

It has nothing to do with bigotry, it has to do with the slippery slope of government control. If you don't understand that, then you haven't paid attention as government has dictated to businesses who they can sell to beyond race or sexual orientation.

If you believe in freedom of individuals marrying who they want, then you should believe in freedom of a private business owner to sell to who they want.

 

[CPA]

You're wrong to support the legalization of discrimination.

You moron, you and every other living human being discriminates every day of your life. Assuming you are married, the fact that you married a specific person means you discriminated against everyone else, for some reason or another.