DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on March 24, 2016, 04:42:59 AM
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/disney-threatens-to-leave-georgia-if-anti-gay-bill-gets-signed-into-law/ar-BBqQfxW?li=BBnb7Kz
Disney favors preserving the right of persons to force other persons to participate in religious ceremonies.
-
That is bullshit.
Disney should boycott Georgia if they pass this.
-
I think we will pass it and we will feel good about it .
It is already estimated to have a cost of a billion or so just for Atlanta.
This is a low price for freedom.
-
What freedom? This is an issue about bigotry, not freedom.
-
1 person's concern about constitutional freedom of religious expression is another person's problem with hateful intolerance
-
What I hate is intolerance. I am intolerant of intolerance.
No one is forcing anyone to marry gays or lesbians, but to say that it is a religious right to refuse to sell them a cake, flowers or a sandwich, that is not any crucial part of any religion.
The Bible says a lot of intolerant things, but it does not say that selling gays or lesbians flowers, cakes or sandwiches is a sin.
-
Disney, of course, has the right to film and pursue whatever business opportunities it wishes outside of Georgia if it wishes.
-
You, who exemplify the left's intolerance, don't get to decide what constitutes as "crucial" as it relates to someone else's religious freedom. End of story
But yes, Disney can go anywhere it wants.
-
I have as much right as you to have an opinion. If they pass this, it will cost them.
They want to stop a train that let the station long ago.
-
And once again, xo trying to argue a point no one has made....and yes, that train left LONG ago No one said you can't have an opinion. What you do NOT get to do is to decide for someone else what is "crucial" to their freedom of religious expression
-
If you can tolerate the idea that a person should be forced to participate in a religious ceremony that is anathema to him , then you can tolerate anything.
-
WHAT religious ceremony? Baking a cake is not participating in a wedding any more than providing electricity for the venue.
No one is actually forcing anyone to participate in any gay wedding.
-
No one is actually forcing anyone to participate in any gay wedding.
If you cannot refuse to participate , you are being forced to participate.
The first amendment is a dead letter.
-
BINGO!
-
Disney, of course, has the right to film and pursue whatever business opportunities it wishes outside of Georgia if it wishes.
I think this is an important point , and it is true.
Other moviemakers and the NFL have also threatened to pull their money making activities out of Georgia costing us in excess of a billion dollars per year.
This is no argument that they are right , but an argument of might.
In this case I would rather be right, odds are good that Disney will want Georgia money again in the future, and the NFL does not really want the Falcons to operate out of Podunk.
-
BINGO!
Yes , well this one is pretty clear and easy.
I marvel at the complication piled on top.
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/san-francisco-mayor-bars-city-workers%e2%80%99-travel-to-north-carolina-over-transgender-bathroom-law/ar-BBqXY4h?li=BBnb7Kz
NC too.
San Francisco city workers , we will miss you.
Because you know These eastern beaches used to be thick with San Francisco city managers on holiday.
-
BINGO!
Yes , well this one is pretty clear and easy.
I marvel at the complication piled on top.
It's semantics combined with political correctness. Of course no one is being forced to participate, but if one is being prevented from not particpating, well.....that's completely different, because...well...because you should want to participate, because if you don't, you are obviously an intolerant bigot, and we're going to punish you for not wanting to participate....because we're the party of tolerance
It's really that upside down
-
Not sure this is only about marraige. The law maybe vague enough to prevent large businesses from working there. Local suppliers may boycott Disney because of this law. Remember Disney has been threaten before so memory may be fresh enough for them to react like this. The right to refuse service will get any business to doubt staying in a local. Can Georgia be trusted now
-
Do you want no right to refuse?
Business may be important , but business owners are a small part of the population, it is no trick to rob a minority of rights with the approval of the majority.
Then what right should be safe?
What the minority looses , the majority can't be smug about , the precedent is set and the first amendment has a hole in it that will sink it.
-
Exactly
-
The right to refuse still exist but to refuse certain groups is the tricky part. Religion was used to refuse before and that is something we don't really need to relive again.
I did state this laws may be vague enough to be more problematic
-
No.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/01/oregon-bakery-owners-refuse-to-pay-damages-in-gay-wedding-cake-case.html
This law is not nearly vague enough!
If you refuse to participate , you loose your store , pay a fortune , and loose your right to speak in public.
If I were homosexual would I really have to support the repeal of the first amendment on my opponents?
-
Disney is about to need to stop filming in Georgia , so that their promise to take political sides will be kept.
Disney is also about to need to stop filming in California because soon the mini-wage there will be $15 per hour.
I have little sympathy for the Disney leadership, they are bringing this onto themselves.
-
They are probably right about their decision being the best for their profits.
Here in FL, the minimum for even a local TV ad shoot was $100 for the day (any FRACTION of a day) ten years ago. I hardly think the CA minimum wage will prevent them from filming there
-
But would this law allow a pharmacy to deny life saving meds for religious reasons.
-
But would this law allow a pharmacy to deny life saving meds for religious reasons.
It would deny BC pills and products to women with valid prescriptions
-
The assholes in Oregon that refused to bake the cake are simply assholes. The premise that all cakes a bakery bakes must be eaten only by those who share the same "religious" beliefs as the bakers is simply idiotic. Perhaps assholes have the right to be assholes: but to call their engaging in assholery a religious belief is just stupid.
They got $50K from other assholes who share their beliefs. That surprises me.
I do not feel sorry for assholes engaging in assholery and calling it "faith".
-
Bc pills are used for other things and can be life saving. I think one pharmatist made a judgement call and denied it. Not believing it was this use.
Some will say just goto another pharmacy. But from my experie nce that not exactly doable . My insurance is very specific where i can get my meds. Also timing can be an issue. I had trouble with my parents heart meds . I think walgreens is famous for being late
-
Walgreens is a pin in the ass. I live about two blocks from a Walgreens. Typically, I drop a prescription off at 2:00 PM,they tell me it will be ready by 5:00, I go at 7:00 and there are 10 people in line and all the clerks are answering phones and ignoring us. If I call on the phone, they do not pick up, or say "please hold" and then hang up. They tell me that a drug is not covered when I know it is,
That's why, unless it is an emergency, I sent the Rx off to the care provider's mail order service.
-
But would this law allow a pharmacy to deny life saving meds for religious reasons.
Where the government is convinced that the religious reason is genuine , the otherwise forbidden Peyote cactus is allowed to be consumed as a psychoactive religious rite.
What religion requires that lifesaving be withheld?
Where a particular drug has a dual use , is it prescribed as for its use?
Is there really a big problem with birth control being difficult to obtain?
Suppose a patient had a prescription for a deadly dose of something, is a pharmacist not required to intervene?
Well, euthanasia is slowly approaching legality , and just in time , pharmacists are loosing the right to refuse to participate.
-
Medication in general can be very difficult to get from pharmacy.
Not really sure in matters of euthanasia it would be an issue for pharmatist at all. Remember lethal injection is getting difficult to do and that's not even supplied by pharmatist. I think presently walgreens is dealing with pain meds and withholding them to customers now despite having doctors prescription.
Certain birth control has been used to treat endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrone.
-
The governor has vetoed the Georgia Religious Bigots protection act. So Disney will not boycott Georgia. This does not mean that Gladstone Gander will marry Donald or that Goofy will propose to Pluto, though.
-
Not to menion, no one has ever claimed or even inferred such, Dr Deflection ::)
-
Deflect yourself, sirs.
-
Naaa....I'll just keep highlighting your transparent efforts
-
I remember the sandra fluke case which her friend got denied medication think it's being used for bc and resulted in her losing one of her overies and other complications.
-
You;ll have to provide more detail Kimba. One doesn't automatically beget the other
-
The topic here is denial of service for religious reason and i cited sandra fluke case about a birth control medication that was denied and result in a person getting serious health problems and lose the ability to give birth.
I'm just using this as an example of possible outcome if religious based denial of service. I personally would prefer a business publicly inform it so not to risk harm. I remember a earlier case which a pharmacy refuse to return a prescription saying it did not want the person to fill it elsewhere for moral reasons.
-
Well the tangent you brought up is that the denal of BC led directly to some emergent situation that left someone without their ovaries, specifically due to them not getting BC. What I'd like to see is some specifics that not getting BC led to this. Knowing some about the medical profession, I'm having a hard time seeing how the 2 are connected
-
The bc meds was not prescribed for bc but for something else but the insurance would not cover it thinking it was for bc only.
-
Im just using this as an example of a possible faith based denial of service.
http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blog/how-an-unscrupulous-birth-control-policy-cost-one-woman-her-ovary/
I only remember this for unrelated reason because sandra fluke got verbally unsulted for this matter and the focus went to her instead of the topic
-
I was not actually serious about Goofy and Pluto, or Gladstone Gander, who only LOOKS like he's gay. I am sorry if this upset your preconceptions about them.
-
The bc meds was not prescribed for bc but for something else but the insurance would not cover it thinking it was for bc only.
Having skimmed over the article Kimba, the BC pills in question were a "prophylactic" prescription, as in they were recommended but not a requirement. Nor was she denied from purcahsing them herself. For example, I suffer migraines....I have for decades now. Nothing worked. Then came Imitrex. Miracle medication when I got my 1st shot of it. And even with a prescription, they were dreadfully expensive. I did what i had to do to buy them. I didn't sue anyone. I didn't take this to congress, even though it was precsely and the only medication that could deal with my migraines. And they weren't prophylactic either. Point being, she could have switched insurances, or worst case scenario, asked her family to help pay for them, until she got under an insurance plan that would cover them
Now, could Georgetown have considered a specific exemption, since it wasn't being used for BC? sure. But once you start down the road of Government mandating that people and institutions must put their religious tenets & principals away, because someone wants something really bad, and is not willing to pay for it.....then the 1st amendment is basically defunct at that point
-
And here's a simple question......Why would anyone want to purchase goods or services from someone who doesn’t value them as a customer??
-
I did say I prefer said business were to post thier preference to deny certain anything
-
Perhaps they might like to have electricity or have emergency surgery or something. Perhaps they live in a small town where all the mechanics or dentists hate gays.
-
How the hell would a mechanic know what someone's sexual preferences were? Or a dentist? An ER Physician?? In what town, ANYWHERE in this country, is it supposedly 100% against homosexual marriage??
Are you incapable of rational thought??
-
I did say I prefer said business were to post thier preference to deny certain anything
And that's all well and good, Kimba. Problem is we're talking about the Government forcing a compliance even if it goes directly against their 1st amendment religious freedom
Again, why would any homosexual couple ever want the services of someone or business that doesn't respect their choice. I know why. I bet you do too
-
In many small towns, everyone knows all sorts of things about others. Everyone graduated from the same high school.
The goal is to make discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal. The right to do bigoted actions should not be guaranteed, I agree that a preacher should not be forced to marry any couple he deems in acceptable, but this is already guaranteed. This Bigot Protection Act is not needed nor desirable. It is just a ploy to suck up to the bigots among the voters, like all the anti=Gay Marriage attempts that preceded it.
-
I've lived in small towns before. Smallest was a town of no more than 900. And I may have known perhaps less than 2% of what others did or knew. That's TV you're referencing, supposedly "everyone knows everyone"
You're trying to conflate 2 arguments...(no surprise there). The arguement is Government mandating that people and businesses are forced to repress their religious freedom for political correctness. Forcing someone to participate in someone's gay function, is precisely that. THAT is unconstitutional
You're trying to turn that as discrimination. News flash, people and businesses have the freedom to say no to participating in some form of ceremony that runs counter to their religious beliefs. What you're trying to connect is businesses that simply function, like dentistry, or mechanic, or pick whatever else line of work. In the latter, the person or business providing the service is not participating in some gay function. They have no knowledge of said person's sexual choices in life, nor shoud they. They're simply providing a service. THAT's the area you're using, and its already illegal for those folks to deny their service for said sexual choices.
See the difference??
The former, that Kimba & I & Plane have been discussing, is forcing people/businesses to participate in supporting their sexual choices. The latter is not. BIG difference
-
You have no real point. I congratulate the governor of Georgia for not being as bigoted as you are. The legislature's intent here was simply to get the bigots to the polls.
The freedom to discriminate should not be permitted. People are free to believe any damned thing they wish. It is ACT^S of discrimination that they should not have the right to commit if they are running any business open to the public. Business and religion are different entities: one is guaranteed a constitutional right, so a preacher may refuse sacraments to people who do not qualify, but baking cakes and taking photos are NOT religious acts, and should not be guaranteed.
-
Of course you have no point....it's been debunked. The Freedom of Religious liberty is Constitutional, and shall not be infringed
-
Then why is this pro-bigot law even needed?
-
Then why is this pro-bigot law even needed?
So we can be more like Europe where a preacher can be jailed for the content of his sermon hewing too close to the scripture , or anyone who wants to refuse to believe as the government declares is proper and orthodox may be cost his freedom to say so.
Last I checked we can't outlaw the Communist party , the Nazi, or the Wobblies.
But we now can make them participate against their will in each others ceremonies.
Governor Deal has succumbed to a severe case of acute stupid , I hope it isn't chronic.
(http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m199/Von_poop/cake.jpg)
Campbell first came to national attention in December 2008 when a local grocery store refused to inscribe a birthday cake for his infant son in the name “Adolf Hitler”: the German National Socialist dictator who initiated the Second World War and killed millions of innocent victims in European death camps in the 1930s and 40s. The ShopRite supermarket in Greenwich Township NJ refused to make a cake for Campbell’s son, who bore the name Adolf Hitler Campbell. Karen Meleta of ShopRite said of the controversy, "We believe the request ... to inscribe a birthday wish to Adolf Hitler is inappropriate."
http://www.speroforum.com/a/UVZFKBNIYX11/76618-NeoNazi-on-the-run-had-been-refused-Nazi-birthday-cake#.VvtDbP_2Yb0
This is a sad case in many respects, but was the bakery out of line to refuse to bake that cake ?
At the time they had that right.
It was nice while it lasted.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372650/why-bakers-should-be-free-discriminate-alec-torres
-
Then why is this pro-bigot law even needed?
There is no such law being proposed. There is a law trying to be passed to protect individuals and businesses from being forced to support practices that they have a constitutional right to object to
-
But would this only stop at sexual orientation. I cant predict what other subjects religions object to also note vaccines are frowned upon by certain christain groups also.
-
Speculation is simply that. I'd need to see/hear of an example. Presently, the issue is about those who chose sexual activities, that are seen as a sin in God's eyes. Not sure where vaccines come into the discussion, since that's no where discussed in the bible
-
Is there supposed to be no limit?
Almost anyone would refuse to do something, and a lot of these things might not be allowed refusal anymore.
-
Presently, the issue is about those who chose sexual activities, that are seen as a sin in God's eyes. Not sure where vaccines come into the discussion, since that's no where discussed in the bible
It is considered to be associated with the Jewish laws associated with blood.
When it comes to medicine, the Bible is quite stupid.
-
When if comes to trying to make a rational argument, we dont have to go far to see how that's not done. Pray tell, where, in this entire country, is the argument being made that vaccines are counter to religious practice
-
Not arguement just saying some groups like rhe christian scientist are against vaccines and certain medicals procedures. I believe jehova witness don't believe in receiving blood transfusions.
Just stating various examples which of religions refusals.
-
Yes, you're going to find some people against something, everywhere. The issue here is who's using the bible or their faith to oppose vaccines?
And blood transfusions are different, since that's completely the choice of the person who the transfusion would be for. Are you advocating that the Government force someone to have a blood transfusion, if they needed one??
-
Vaccines go into the bloodstream. Blood was seen as sacred .
Government does not demand that people get transfusions. As a rule, the doctor says somnething like "you can get a transfusion, or you can die". This convinces most people. Christian "Scientists" on the other hand, do not agree to have transfusions, and therefore are entitled to have the words "the Late" preceding their names, as a rule. The power of prayer is far less effective then modern medicine.
People have a right to refuse treatment. They own their bodies and have the absolute right to control them in my opinion.
-
i did state some christians scientist opposes vaccines and i think they do bloodless surguries. Not sure how safe that is.
-
The government cannot and should not force anyone to have a blood transfusion.
This is about the bogus concept that anyone with a business open to the public should be given the option of refusing to provide their advertised service of expertise based on some religious belief. I say they should not. Religion is not about denying people anything.
-
Vaccines go into the bloodstream. Blood was seen as sacred .
The question has yet to be answered....who's using the bible or their faith to oppose mandatory vaccines?
Government does not demand that people get transfusions.
Apparently Kimba brought up Jehova Witnesses, which indeed have made a decision based on their faith, not to obtain a particular treatment (blood transfusion). That's why I asked why bring it up, if not to support a notion that Government should be able to. More clarity as to why it was brought up is in order, I would imagine
And just fyi, I know about all the "rules" regarding what Doctors do, say, order, and expect. I work with them, on a daily basis
-
Good for you!
-
I said Christian scientist and I think various area here in the u.s. has stopped religious exemption due these outbreaks recently.
-
The government cannot and should not force anyone to have a blood transfusion.
This is about the bogus concept that anyone with a business open to the public should be given the option of refusing to provide their advertised service of expertise based on some religious belief. I say they should not. Religion is not about denying people anything.
You do not see the contradiction included ?
If you were a woodcutter would you like it when the government required you to provide the wood for a which burning?
If you were a brick mason would you feel hard twards the government requiring you to build a cremation oven in a concentration camp?
If you were a translator would you refuse to translate the results of a tortured confession?
Think on it , all three of these things have been done by governments, I don't think it would be hard to have a longer list of equally objectionable coercions.
But this is all different when the government is forcing something that you agree with?
-
Wedding cakes and photographs are not crematoriums.
I mean,. get real. This is not religion, it is just bigotry.
-
Wedding cakes and photographs are not crematoriums.
I mean,. get real. This is not religion, it is just bigotry.
On your part perhaps.
How long have you been Pope?
Or what credential do you have to determine what is and is not religion?
I don't suppose it is even possible that you could be required by the government to do something you found disgusting, if the government wants it , it must be good.
-
You cannot convince me that cake baking and photography are acts or religious persecution.
-
I probably couldn't convince you that Pi is irrational unless you were open to the notion.
Yet it is not subjective.
Pi is irrational.
Being forced to perform is not freedom.
Opinion notwithstanding.
-
One is free to have a business open to the public. One is not free to use it for bigotry,
-
Wedding cakes and photographs are not crematoriums.
I mean,. get real. This is not religion, it is just bigotry.
On your part perhaps.
How long have you been Pope?
Or what credential do you have to determine what is and is not religion?
Exactly the point I was making as well. He doesn't get to decide what is or isn't religiously important to someone else's faith
-
The Governor of Georgia vetoed this stupid bill. I am only an observer.
My belief that religion is not about refusing to bake cakes or take photos of gay weddings is 100% unrelated to this wise decision.
Next time you chat with the Lawd Gawd Almighty, ask him to add the following to the Ten Commandments:
\
XI THOU SHALT NOT BAKE CAKES FOR QUEERS,
XII THOU SHALT NOT TAKE PHOTOS OF GAY WEDDINGS, EITHER.
If He comments on this, and adds a plug on your behalf, it could mean great times are ahead for you.
People will surely come from far and wide so you can lay your hands on them.
You will be more famous than the Virgin Mary that once appeared on a pancake,
-
Like I said, and Plane referred to as well, you don't get to decide what is or isn't religiously important to someone else's faith
-
One is free to have a business open to the public. One is not free to use it for bigotry,
Oh , who is free to define bigotry?
If a bigot comes into your shop and threatens to sue if you don't participate in his project you just need to get sued.
In that article I posted the authors called dozens of bakeries and none of them were willing to bake a cake with Nazi emblems on it.
Before you celebrate the wisdom of these bakeries , remember that the loss of this right to refuse is happening right now.
-
Cakes are effing trivial. This topic is trivial.
-
Point being, you don't get to decide what's trivial and what's not, in someone else's faith....end of story
-
I do and I have: baking cakes has nothing to do with any religion
-
No, you haven't. You've only decided what's trivial and what's not in YOUR "faith". Thank you for playing
-
Go play with yourself, sirs.
-
Great rebuttal. (one again, one always knows when the good professor has come to the end of his "debate" rope.) Thanks for the validation sir
-
Cakes are effing trivial. This topic is trivial.
Cakes are trivial if you are buying an occasional cake and have many bakeshops to choose from.
\
Cakes are extremely important if you own a bakeshop, and holding any small business in contempt for being small is very contrary to the best way to achieve peace, freedom and full employment.
\
Seems as though those to whom the cake is a triviality are forcing their cake will onto the people whose lives depend on cake.
It is never good to have those least invested , in most control.
-
Owning a bakeshop is not important. Get effing serious. If some religious bigot wants to make a living baking things, he does not have to ever make wedding cakes for anyone. Wedding cakes are a minor part of the bakery business.
This is a trivial issue about which no one, gay, religious or whatever, needs to give one damn.
-
And repeating one more time, for the visually impaired, you don't get to decide, for someone else what is or isn't religiously important to their faith.
-
I have already decided. More importantly, the Governor of Georgia has decided as well.
-
And neither of you two have the power to decide what is or isn't religiously important or trivial, in someone else's faith
Thank God for that
-
A 50% loss of the first amendment is a very big deal, even if it is only for fifty percent of all bakers.
That is a noxious seed to be planted, how do we know it is not Kudzu?