The Religious Freedom Act poses a threat to religious freedom!

[Anonymous]

Doesn't anyone see the real danger in passing this bill?

So, we *all* know already that this "cleverly disguised" bill is designed to force the BGLT community to adhere to traditional Christian standards. And that would be just fine, if we were a Christian nation. But we are not.

We all know that this bill is, in truth, a violation of the constitution. First amendment. There is *supposed* to be a CLEAR separation of Church and State. This country was founded on the idea of freedom, and our first countrymen came here from the "motherland" seeking religious freedom. A freedom to worship in their own way. A freedom of choice, in how to live.

Being Bi, Gay, or a Lesbian, is not a choice. It's who you, and how you are born, not something that you can change. CHOOSING to live, love, date, marry, and even have sex with a member of your same sex doesn't make you gay. But living that way is still a choice.

We all deserve the right to choose to live in a way that makes us happy and fulfilled, so long as you are not inflicting real harm on another living being. If you are gay, then you deserve the right to be gay.

If this bill allows DISCRIMINATION based on RELIGIOUS morals, then what is stopping religious organizations from using this same bill to deny service for other personal choices, like say, other religions?

Muslims have also been heavily targeted by largely Christian organizations for hate crimes. If a Christian can deny service to a gay based on religious creed, then a Christian can also deny service to a Muslim, or a Wiccan for the same reason.

This bill is not designed to squash out the BGLT community, it is designed to stomp out the non-Christian community. Passing a bil that encourages Christian religious freedoms, is to pass a bill that would deny rights to non-Christians. This bill would TAKE AWAY relgious freedoms, and pave the way into converting us into a Christian nation.

On a related note, I do feel that gender specific facilities should be regulated by the physical genitalia that you posses. Until you have had a sex change, you are the gender you are born as, in my opinion. But I also feel that businesses should provide at least 1 unisex restroom. If there isn't a unisex restroom, just go into the stall. Even the men's rooms have a stall.

I personally would not be upset/offended if a cross dressed male came into the ladies room, went right into the stall, did business and left quietly. Aren't I worried he might stare? No, because lesbians stare too. And women are just as capable of rape as a man. BOOM. There goes any arguments about bathroom segregation.

[QuestionMan]

This law was meant to prevent LGBTs from forcing their will on businesses. The problem is it was done in the name of religion. I went into detail in my myTake on how this law purposely targets LGBTs instead of giving businesses the right to refuse service.
www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a26820-lgbt-extremism-the-right-to-private-property

[myTake Owner]

I read you take, and I do agree with you, completely. Public service is paid for by taxes. A religious organization who doesn't pay taxes should be exempt from having to provide a religious service to the public, but a private business owner should also be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
They haven't made this about equal rights, they have made this about religion, and that is why I believe this will will give the people the right to discriminate based on other religious factors.

[Anonymous]

It'd be nice to see which country you are talking about. As far as I know, it's implied that you are assuming that "we" are Americans.

[myTake Owner]

I am talking about America, and "we Americans", do not live in a "Christian nation".

[Anonymous]

If there is a CLEAR separation of Church and State then the state shouldn't be able to force religious people to do something that goes against their faith. That is the issue.

"This country was founded on the idea of freedom" Is that why slavery was legal? We like to tell ourselves our country was founded on freedom, or religion or other such issues, but in the end it came down to everyone just looking out for their own best interest and had nothing to do with more noble issues.

"If this bill allows DISCRIMINATION based on RELIGIOUS morals, then what is stopping religious organizations from using this same bill to deny service for other personal choices, like say, other religions?" Nothing, in fact Obama care is now taxing unhealthy life styles, which is just another form of discrimination. The idea that we can live in a country free from any discrimination is stupid. The government can't force you to interact someone you don't like without violating your rights.

People will always find a way to hate and discriminate against others. No amount of laws can change that. Sometimes the best thing you can do is just to allow them to go their own separate ways, instead of forcing them to interact with each other.

If groups want to create business that doesn't do business with Christians, then likewise that is fine with me. If a christian doesn't want to sell someone something, a different business owner will.

"And women are just as capable of rape as a man. BOOM. There goes any arguments about bathroom segregation." No it doesn't. The fact that both genders can hurt each other equally through either rape, or false rape claims actually proves it is more dangerous for both genders to share a bathroom. Separate bathrooms keep the men safe from women as well. That way neither gender can hurt one another.

Men's bathrooms are also more efficient than women's restrooms because of urinals. When they go to unisex bathrooms women want to get rid of the urinals that they can't use, and replace them with regular toilets on the claim it makes more sense since everyone can use them. Women frequently refuse to sit on the toilets, and hover thereby missing. This means they end up shitting and peeing all over the toilet and even the wall. Then men are expected to sit down to pee, (they are already forbidden from standing to pee in some schools) so they have to somehow deal with all the shit on the toilet seat instead of just being able to use the urinal.

[Jack_S]

Nothing to add. This just sounds like a wise response.

[Spiorad_Aisce]

First of all I fully support equal rights of the LGBT+ community but I find it unnecessary that these bills are reduced to histrionic debate and worst case scenarios which lead to kneejerk reactions like this bill.
To me all that has to happen is
(1) The churches accept the right of same sex couples to have a state marriage. If they want a religious blessing that is between the same sex couple of faith and their church.
(2) The same sex couples accept some churches, businesses or officials will find it uncomfortable to provide them service. There are plenty that will and be happy for the business, go to them.
Locker rooms, I have no issue with the situation but accept both sides have genuine concerns about
(1) Pre any physical procedures transgender MTF using ladies' locker rooms
(2) If law enforced a transgender MTF who has had any physical procedures having to use mens' locker room.
I think that a compromise should be reached in that all areas have to provide a third unisex option for transgenders and those who support them (I would).
There you are, no need for histrionic debate and doomsday scenarios. There is room to try and cater to as many peoples' valid and genuine concerns as possible,

[myTake Owner]

Well said!

[Relentless_Hippie]

For one it is impossible to change your sex. It doesn't matter if you have a sex change, your sex is determined on a genetic level. There's no changing that. All you'll have is a man with fake breasts, hormonal treatments and mutilated genitals.

Second, forcing someone to provide services that GO AGAINST their faith is just as wrong honestly it's worse. If a gay person walks into a restaurant and orders a meal let him have his meal, if a gay person walks into a bakery and asks they make a cake for a gay wedding they reserve the right to say no. If a pastor is actually true to his faith he isn't going to marry a gay couple and has the right to refuse. Following the law of God is so much more important than bending to the will of mankind. Gays can find services from other people who haven't chosen to dedicate their lives to serving God. And in case you didn't know Christianity isn't the only religion that speaks against homosexuality.

You yourself might not believe in God or a heaven or hell but other people certainly do. Money is not more important than serving God, gay people can find someone else to provide whatever services they're looking for instead of getting pissed off and wishing damnation unto others.

[myTake Owner]

Why do you assume that I don't follow any gods? I follow several.

This isn't about money, this about equality. Prove to me that your god is more real and more deserving than any other gods and I will gladly agree with you.

But there is lies the problem, You cannot convince me anymore than I can convince you.

If you think this is about money, let's talk about money. I pay taxes that fund the fire, police, and emergency dispatch services. Even though you may pay tithes and offerings to you church, your church does not pay taxes, and yet your church is still ENTITLED to dial 911 and request emergency services if a fire or burglary happens.

I, a NON Christian, pay money so that your church can have access to services that your church does not pay for. My tax money also helps to fund our military. Those soldiers, fight and die all the time to give you and your fellow Christians the right to worship freely, when other countries have enforced a single religions or none at all.

[Relentless_Hippie]

I didn't assume you didn't believe in God, I assumed you didn't believe in the God whose faith you were talking about. Yeah it's about equality, but is it equal to force a religious person to perform acts the GO AGAINST their religious beliefs? Marrying a gay couple GOES AGAINST a Christian Pastor and several other religious authorities commitment to God. Why can't a gay couple find a gay church to be wed in, or just another pastor who has no problem with doing what God speaks against? Preparing a meal for a gay couple DOES NOT go against someone's faith because God talks about taking care of your fellow man. Choosing not to feed a hungry person or abusing others GOES AGAINST someone's faith therefore if gays want a meal then let them eat. However, baking a cake that celebrates a gay wedding does GO AGAINST someone's faith and therefore that person should have the right to refuse service.

[Relentless_Hippie]

The gay couple could have any other cake thy want like a birthday cake or a graduation cake, but forcing someone whose faith speaks against homosexuality to make a cake that celebrates their lifestyle is not okay. Sure, provide normal services to gay people as you would anyone else but NO ONE should be FORCED to provide a service that GOES AGAINST their faith. It's not that hard to find someone else who doesn't believe in God to make them a cake. For that person it's a business decision to make money, not a choice between money and God.

[Humping_Tornadoes]

Very, very well put @Relentless_Hippie

[Relentless_Hippie]

@Humping_Tornadoes Why thank you. :)

[Intraluminal]

Actually the law, the act, allows people to refuse meals and shelter (they use the word accommodation in the act, but it means the same thing as shelter)

[Relentless_Hippie]

@Intraluminal Are you assuming that's what it means or is that what it actually means?

[Intraluminal]

That's what it means. Look in the dictionary.

[Relentless_Hippie]

@Intraluminal That's not what I meant but regardless my opinion still stands. If that's what it says then maybe the act could use some refinement but no one should be forced to perform acts that go against their beliefs. There's no denying that.

[Psi_Unknown]

There's an interesting selection. Do churches really pay no taxes? I thought they had to at least buy ground and pay property taxes, but maybe they are exempt, I don't know. Also, churches can pay in other ways. For example, when neighbors have to be airlifted by church parking lot. While it is true churches (or officials) can request emergency services, they can also provide refuge for when emergencies actually do take place. Honestly, lines are blurring everywhere these days, it is hard to tell where one system stops and another begins.

Quote selection below:

"If you think this is about money, let's talk about money. I pay taxes that fund the fire, police, and emergency dispatch services. Even though you may pay tithes and offerings to you church, your church does not pay taxes, and yet your church is still ENTITLED to dial 911 and request emergency services if a fire or burglary happens."

[hellionthesage]

It absolutely doesn't do that at all. It states that a private business has the right to refuse service to the LGBT community if they wish that does not mean that they are demanding they follow the "christian" relgion. Just as homosexuals business owners should have the right to refuse service to those who they disagree with. Businesses do this all the time in fact. Whenever a spokes person says something that the company dislikes they cut ties, same goes with other companies if they are doing business with a company and find out that the company is racist/sexist/prejudice they cut ties. This simply allows it to go both ways. In fact without this bill one can very easily argue that it is the LGBT community who is using the federal government to force private citizens to operate under THEIR (LGBT community) moral code which is illegal. Only the federal government and public institutions have to be impartial in all things, private citizens and by extention the businesses (ie the fruit of their labor) do not.

[Psi_Unknown]

What the *beep* did I just read? An image of something labeled cognitive dissonance is shown, which describes rationalizing a means for protecting that belief, which is weird, because this article has some strange information. How many beliefs are in this article, and how much is rationalized? What is the Religious Freedom Act formally? Ideally systems should function independently, but they do not in the real world. Separating Church from State is like trying to separate money from politics or religion, it just can't be done. I am sorry to tell you this, but beliefs are reasons people make laws. That does not mean one has to accept Christian beliefs, non-Christian beliefs, Muslim, Wiccan, or BGLT beliefs, but ultimately some beliefs and some church will make its way in. Why is being Bi, Gay, or Lesbian not a choice? Is being straight not a choice? You might be surprised to find out the things people can change if they try hard enough. Does it really matter if it is a choice or not anyway? Can businesses really afford to install another restroom? Actually, I have seen people having to use restrooms of another label in emergencies. And I get the whole bathroom argument, guys can stare at guys and women at women, but is having businesses reconfigure their restrooms possible? Because of the way society exists and has existed for so long, separating bathrooms by sex/gender reduces problems and incidents. Truly, if people were respectful and decent towards others, any bathroom label would not matter, but that just isn't always the case. As for this article, we have, The Religious Freedom Act, Cognitive Dissonance, supposed discrimination, separation of Church and State, and finally a segregation argument. *still confused* It seems like this is all over the place, when even one issue needs a whole separate posting.

[ObscuredBeyond]

No, the bill merely protects ALL women and children from ANY shade of pervert!

There is not one single part of the bill that is forcing anyone to go to church, nor to attend a Bible class.

And you are wrong: if all manner of strangers can enter any bathroom, you double the odds of something bad happening. That doesn't mean all dangers go away with the bill in place, only that half of the potential dangers are specifically singled out as a definite no-no.

Lesbians can rape, but that does not excuse letting men into a women's restroom. Ever. It means that the AGLP needs to be exposed for the political fraud that it is, and the DSM-II classification needs to be reinstated. BEFORE they can get away with re-classifying and de-stigmatizing pedophilia!

[Anonymous]

BGLT? Wtf? Why is it every time someone speaks about the LGBT community it continuously changes?

"And that would be just fine, if we were a Christian nation."

Not true. In general the LGBT community fights for LGBT equality in other countries that don't accept the LGBT community. It doesn't matter if the country is a highly religious like Syria they will still step in.

Privately owned mom and pop stores have been targeting Muslims for a while. First time I heard they were primarily christian shop owners. If you don't like it then avoid the shop and let them go out of business.

I agree about the unisex bathroom but I honestly stopped giving a shit. I'm tired of this crap. DNA doesn't lie though. Born a male you will always be a male no matter what surgery you have. Same with a female going under the knife to become a guy.

What are the stats of women being raped by other women in bathrooms compared to men?

[Psi_Unknown]

Yeah, I couldn't even follow that at first myself. BGLT? Took some time to decipher that one!

[Anonymous]

And Sorry but the LGBT is forcing thier beleifs on people. Being in the wrong body is a beleif system not fact. So its the same damn thing. And christians genocide is happening in the middle east , where christianity belongsto begin with so tf you talking about. And fact is trans people are not what they idneify with this isn't a walt disney movie you dont become a real boy or girl. they need psychological help for their gender dyshpora. The LGBT is a rich as corporate business and low key runs hollywood. LOL, and your delusional if you say women rape as much as men. YOu have to be trans to say so such dumb sexist illogical shit. The LGBT community is the modern day version of white supremacy , going to invade and force beleifs onto people.

[ColinHarvey]

Oughhhhh godddddd.

I saw the title and though, "ohh, she uses her brain," and then I read some shit about everyone gets the right to be LGBT-ABCDEFGLMNOP however they want and some crap about an amendment that you don't understand.

This is about Muslims, not Christians. Atlanta has more gays than Amsterdam on a Sunday, no one there is out to get the gays. They pass this on some dumb public statement of Christian fundamentalism, but you know what's going to end up happening is CAIR is just going to Hijack this thing and use it to get Muslim-only businesses. If you want to deny gay couples a wedding cake just tell them, "Sorry, we're all booked up! Can't make it for ya." but because these moronic Christians just have to have some public profession it's going to totally screw them over.

Also this has nothing to do with marriage. The state still has to issue liscenses for marriage. This is all about WEDDINGS.

[randomhobo]

So you think genitals should dictate bathroom use? What about someone like me who looks fully female and passes but is too poor to afford the operation. No one can tell, if i go into the males i get weird as hell looks (i may have wandered in whilst drunk one time and used a urinal after like 7 vodka shots)

[myTake Owner]

I'm actually against bathroom segregation. I just think of they're *going* to do it, that's the most fair way. I'd have no issues with you using the ladies room, as I stated near the end of the article.

[FakeName123]

Meanwhile this is completely acceptable, because hey - its just men being the victims so it doesn't matter: www.dose.com/.../Here-s-Why-Women-Everywhere-Will-Delete-Uber-On-April-19

[FakeName123]

And before someone doesn't get it - I think private companies have the right to refuse their service to anyone they want to refuse it to. Doesn't matter if for security, religious, personal, ethical and other reasons.

[myTake Owner]

One of my best friends, who was an uber driver, was raped by one of her customers, using a stolen cell phone to call an Uber.

I have never used the app anyway, because I have my own car (that is too old to use for rideshare) but it still gets me around just fine.

[FakeName123]

You went past my point big time. The point was that there are several businesses which refuse to serve certain people - in this case a business that refuses to serve 50% of the population altogether.

And I think its perfectly fine for a private business - just wanted to show the double standards there when one causes an outcry and the other doesn't.

[John_Doesnt]

This law will only be around for a few years before sensible people have it forced out. These types of bigoted laws always appear when the religious right feel uncomfortable about new changes or having to accept new people.
It's no different then when the conservatives were strongly against blacks integrating with the whites.

Society always becomes more liberal and accepting of others (just look at history). So it's only a matter of time before this bill goes away.

[matheus_mb]

I can't really understand why is it still allowed for religion to dictate rules in politics! It's just unacceptable, both things MUST work separately or bills like that one can pass at any moment in more places.

[RationalMale]

You said the 1st Amendment is about separation of church and state. Well, this bill is about the state separating itself from the church and not messing with religion.

[Intraluminal]

There are already laws against discrimination. This act simply promises that at the behest of religion, the starter will not enforce the law. That means religion is telling the state which laws to enforce. Bye bye separation of church and state hello theocracy!

[RationalMale]

@Intraluminal To late, the religion of the left is already the law in most of the country.

[Intraluminal]

The religion of the left?: dream on!

[RationalMale]

@Intraluminal What else do you call it? It's a belief set where standard operating procedure is ruining the careers of anyone who disagrees, or massively fining anyone who has objections and dares not want to rent their property for such events. It's a religion of "equality."

[Intraluminal]

I workbin medicine. Can you imagine how many dead bodies I'd have left in my wakebif I only took care of the people I approved of? I've taken care of religious zealots, child molesters, and idiots of every stripe.

All the law requires is that people do thier fucking jobs like doctors and nurse do evrery day of the year! You don't have to like people to do your job. You don't have to approve of their choices. You just have to do for them the same things you do for everyone else - and get paid for it! What a terruble, evil idea! You have to treat everyone the same! You have to do your job! You have tobtake their money. How tyrannical they must be to expect people to take thier miney and their jobs!

[RationalMale]

@Intraluminal simple reality is that while freedom and equality walk hand in hand for a time, they must part ways sooner or later.

[Intraluminal]

You said, "simple reality is that while freedom and equality walk hand in hand for a time, they must part ways sooner or later."

Very trite. What does it mean and why does it make sense to you?

[RationalMale]

@Intraluminal Aaannd we can all tell you didn't much like your political science/government/history classes back in the day. Have you ready Democracy in America by Tocqueville, or Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom?

And it means exactly what it says. Freedom and equality, for a while, can be two concepts used for similar goals, ideals. But after a while, they have to part ways. Simple example:

www.washingtonpost.com/.../...129976abb_story.html

Either the owners of the property have the freedom to pick and choose what events to rent too and the lesbian couple has to find another place, feeling less "equal"... or to force an "equality" for lesbians, that freedom is taken away and the owners cannot say no to any group that wants to rent their property, whether they wholeheartedly love the group or have a religious/personal objection.

[RationalMale]

@Intraluminal Recommended reading--a brilliant, insightful book. My senior seminar paper was on this book. Good times, having to actually think through something well enough to write 20 pages about it... so few jobs let you do things like that.

[G-Daz]

I can't believe I'm still astounded by how far the social justice warriors go to attack anything not conforming to leftist extremism. What a load of crock

[Anonymous]

Old money still rules this nation. They are dwindling in numbers, afraid that they will be the minority and are the loudest voice. These laws are complete and utter bullshit. They will be overturned eventually. The south is still 50 years left behind culturally.

[Intraluminal]

As much as I hate this law and agree with your position, saying that women rape as often as men is bending the truth into a pretzel

[BusinessBasketball]

Religious and politics should stay out of each other. It's the reason why the Middle East is a mess up place.

[Careless_Whisper]

Yet homosexuals are allowed to sue Christians for not going against their religious beliefs. It's the atheists who are the most dangerous.

[Psi_Unknown]

It is goofy one group (or some of one group) claims to be discriminated against and turns around and returns the same.

[myTake Owner]

I missed this response earlier; I do not agree with homosexuals being able to sue religious organizations for refusing service. As it has been stated many times, there are more than enough optimus out there for the BGLT community to obtain goods and services without the need for harassing religious organisations to try and force them to accept homosexuality. My issue is with business having the ability to openly discriminate against a people for a personal choice. Having the right to refuse service, I agree with, but it should be handled in a personal case to case basis. "That person is gay", not an acceptable reason. "That person makes me really uncomfortable. And I do not want them in my store", acceptable. You should feel safe at work.

[jjmarvin]

Fine, I pray anyone who votes in favor of that bill gets shot next to a Muslim hospital.