North Carolina House Passes Bill Voiding All Local LGBT Nondiscrimination Ordinances

[GMDino]

(04-16-2016, 12:58 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Neither does going to a more gay friendly baker but you have a problem with that, right?

Never said I did.  I said the baker had to follow the law and his "religious beliefs" aren't the law.  the law is you can't deny services for some reasons...not any and all reasons.

If the law says I can refuse to bake you a cake because my religion says the name PhilHos is evil and may not be spoken or written...that law needs changed.

[fredtoast]

(04-16-2016, 12:52 PM)PhilHos Wrote: But the supposed discrimination is part of their belief (according to many people against this law).

Then you can't do it.

Here in the United States we belive in treating everyone equally.  We don't accept dicrimination based on re;ligious beliefs.

Same way we respect the religious beliefs of Muslims in the United States, but don't allow them to carry out honor killings or acid attacks just because some may claim those are justified based on their religious beliefs.

[*bfine32*]

(04-16-2016, 01:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then you can't do it.

Here in the United States we belive in treating everyone equally.  We don't accept dicrimination based on re;ligious beliefs.

Same way we respect the religious beliefs of Muslims in the United States, but don't allow them to carry out honor killings or acid attacks just because some may claim those are justified based on their religious beliefs.

So if someone thinks males should use men's room and females should use women's rooms then they are discriminating? What protected class is that?

Springsteens BELIEF that this is discrimination caused him to discrimante against a whole class of people.

[fredtoast]

(04-16-2016, 01:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So discrimination is okay as long as you're discriminating against a group that discriminated first?

There was not "first" discrimination.

No Christians have been discriminated against in any way here.  Not being allowed to pass a law based on religious beliefs is not "discrimination".

You are confusing "not allowed to get special treatment for my religion" with "discrimination".

[Rotobeast]

Bruce Springsteen found a way to become somewhat relevant again.
Good for him.

[*PhilHos*]

(04-16-2016, 01:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Never said I did.  I said the baker had to follow the law and his "religious beliefs" aren't the law.  the law is you can't deny services for some reasons...not any and all reasons.

If the law says I can refuse to bake you a cake because my religion says the name PhilHos is evil and may not be spoken or written...that law needs changed.

But not performing a concert because the people of NC are transgender hating religious nuts IS ok?

[*bfine32*]

IF this use whatever bathroom you want rule is passed; then isn't the person that wants everyone to use facilities based on their sex being discriminated against; because they can no longer be comfortable using the public facility?

And I would venture to say more people will be discriminated if this law passes.

[fredtoast]

(04-16-2016, 01:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So if someone thinks males should use men's room and females should use women's rooms then they are discriminating? What protected class is that?

It punishes transgenders by foring them to go to the bathroom of a sex they do not identify with.

It is a law that punishes one small group with no benefit to anyone.  All of the lewd and lascivious behavior that the anti-LGBT groups are using as fear mongering is already illegal.  This law does nothing to protect anyone.  All it does is punishes the transgender community.

I know I have been in places where if I was dressed as a woman I would have been afraid to go into the mesn restroom for fear of getting beaten up.  And even in cases where there is no violence there can be extreme embarrassment by teenagers and even some adults.

[*PhilHos*]

(04-16-2016, 01:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There was not "first" discrimination.

No Christians have been discriminated against in any way here.  Not being allowed to pass a law based on religious beliefs is not "discrimination".

You are confusing "not allowed to get special treatment for my religion" with "discrimination".

No I'm not. Springsteen denied services to a group of people because he disagrees with their beliefs. For a baker, that's against the law. For Springsteen, that's fine because ... other people discriminated first?

Had he cancelled his whole tour, THAT'S a different story.

[*Nately120*]

(04-16-2016, 01:07 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Bruce Springsteen found a way to become somewhat relevant again.
Good for him.

The Boss will always be relevant as long as there are loudmouthed rednecks completely missing the point of "Born in the USA!"

[fredtoast]

(04-16-2016, 01:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IF this use whatever bathroom you want rule is passed; then isn't the person that wants everyone to use facilities based on their sex being discriminated against; because they can no longer be comfortable using the public facility?

No.  

You are already protected from any behavior that would make you feel uncomfortable.

there is no need for a new law.

[*bfine32*]

(04-16-2016, 01:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: there is no need for a new law.

Hey we agree.

But folks are still going to "feel" uncomfortable.

[*Nately120*]

I'll move this here from the JOKES thread:

PhilHos
In the spirit I'd this thread, this will be my last post on the subject in THIS thread.

I'm not trying to justify discrimination based upon religious belief, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those discriminating and justifying discrimination because of religious belief regardless of who started it.

It seems to me like the people protesting are far less inclined to link Christianity with discrimination as actual Christians are. This is hardly symmetrical, but can only be symmetrical if you have to say that discrimination and treating people with inequality is an irrevocable tenant of Christianity...which I don't.

This isn't boycotting the religion, it's boycotting the actions of the religious. That's how I see it.

[fredtoast]

(04-16-2016, 01:13 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No I'm not. Springsteen denied services to a group of people because he disagrees with their beliefs. 

No he didn't.

WHY IS HE WILLING TO PERFORM FOR THE SAME PEOPLE WITH THE SAME BELIEFS WHEN THEY ARE NOT DISCRIMINATING BASED ON THOSE BELIEFS?

Answer this question or STFU.

the problem is not with theri religious beliefs.  it is the discrimination based on those religious beliefs.

[Rotobeast]

(04-16-2016, 01:14 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The Boss will always be relevant as long as there are loudmouthed rednecks completely missing the point of "Born in the USA!"

The only thing I heard in that song was him proclaiming himself to be a Long Dong Daddy.

[*Nately120*]

(04-16-2016, 01:27 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: The only thing I heard in that song was him proclaiming himself to be a Long Dong Daddy.

He also says he was sent to kill the yellow man.  We can only infer that this means being sent off to kill people is awesome and those people you kill are totally deserving of it!

[*PhilHos*]

(04-16-2016, 01:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No he didn't.

WHY IS HE WILLING TO PERFORM FOR THE SAME PEOPLE WITH THE SAME BELIEFS WHEN THEY ARE NOT DISCRIMINATING BASED ON THOSE BELIEFS?

Answer this question or STFU.

the problem is not with theri religious beliefs.  it is the discrimination based on those religious beliefs.

BECAUSE THE SUPPOSED DISCRIMINATION IS PART OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

Why is it discrimination when a baker is willing to serve gays except for when it comes to gay marriages but it's not discrimination when Springsteen is willing to serve N. Carolinans except when it comes to their religious beliefs (in the form of supposed discrimination)?

Answer these questions or STFU.

[Rotobeast]

I have no interest in jumping into the STFU arguments, but I wanted to share one of the results from putting STFU into Google images.

[fredtoast]

(04-16-2016, 02:58 PM)PhilHos Wrote: BECAUSE THE SUPPOSED DISCRIMINATION IS PART OF THEIR RELIGIOUS  BELIEFS

Why is it discrimination when a baker is willing  to serve gays except for when it comes to gay marriages but it's not discrimination when Springsteen is willing to serve N. Carolinans except when it comes to their religious beliefs (in the form of supposed discrimination)?

Answer these questions or STFU.

If he was discriminating against them for their religious beliefs then he would not play for them when they were not discriminating.  Springsteen has no problem with any person holding any religious belief.  He will take their money and perform for them as long as they are not discriminating based on those religious beliefs. If he was against the religious beliefs then he would never perform for these people.  But that is not the case.  he is just against the discrimination.

So to answer your question it is okay to refuse service to people who are guilty of discrimination, but it is not okay to refuse services to people based on religious beliefs.  

You just can't get through your head that it is not okay to discriminate just because it is based on religious beliefs. 

[fredtoast]

(04-16-2016, 01:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No he didn't.

WHY IS HE WILLING TO PERFORM FOR THE SAME PEOPLE WITH THE SAME BELIEFS WHEN THEY ARE NOT DISCRIMINATING BASED ON THOSE BELIEFS?

Answer this question or STFU.

(04-16-2016, 02:58 PM)PhilHos Wrote: BECAUSE THE SUPPOSED DISCRIMINATION IS PART OF THEIR RELIGIOUS  BELIEFS

This does not answer my question at all.

If it is about religious beliefs then why is he willing to play for the exact same people with the exact same beliefs when they are not discriminating based on those beliefs?

It is not about the beliefs.  It is about the discrimination.

If your religious beliefs require you to discriminate then you can't do business in the United States.  We do not allow that.  We demand that everyone is treated equally.