• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas decide to take a few steps back into 18th century

Emily's Cat said:
Is it also preposterous that members of the EU have different laws?
Click to expand...

Strawman.

The members of the EU are countries; they are sovereign states. Individual States of the USA are not sovereign, they are simply provinces of the USA. The USA IS a sovereign state

Emily's Cat said:
Just for a bit of balance... The ability of states to make laws within their boundaries is also why we have gay marriage, euthanasia, and legalized weed.
Click to expand...

These things pertain to people's rights and should be decided on at a Federal level, not a state level.
 
Ziggurat said:
All states allow abortion. That's been the case ever since Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that, but that may not be the case much longer. Read the link in the OP

"The Texas bill also includes provisions that let adoption and foster care agencies refuse to provide or facilitate abortion services and contraception to teens under their care. Child welfare providers can also require children under their care to receive a religious education, including putting them in religious schools."

Its the thin end of the wedge; first religion can be used to make determinations about people's rights, then it become recommended/preferred, then it becomes compulsory. If you give the religious nut-cases the first inch, they won;t just take the mile, they'll take whole distance!
 
ahhell said:
This makes wonder how german federalism or canadian federalism works. I expect there are numerous state laws that you would find objectionable their as well. Also, you think its barbaric that a nation has states with different laws regarding the death penalty, I assume that means a nation that uniformly allows the death penalty would be civilized?
Click to expand...

Germany : All those law pertaining to persons as per the op are federal laws e.g. Strafgesetzbuch. The local stuff is more governance and administration, not laws per see, but I am ready to stand corrected. ETA: And as far as I can tell if there is a contradiction, bundes gesetzt (federal) is what counts, as in the end the bundesgerichtshof (supreme court) is what decide.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
Basically if the reading of the bill is correct, a catholic child care provider can refuse adoption to an atheist, gay, or LGBT parent on religious ground. The tidbit about refusing teen abortion on religious ground is as disgusting.
Click to expand...
Maybe but the 1st amendment clearly says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...".

Requiring somebody to act contrary to their religious beliefs seems about as unconstitutional as it gets.

There are other alternatives such as refusing funding or certification to somebody who declares that they would not follow policy.
 
smartcooky said:
The members of the EU are countries; they are sovereign states. Individual States of the USA are not sovereign, they are simply provinces of the USA. The USA IS a sovereign state.
Click to expand...
You must be reading a different constitution. The one I read has a tenth amendment.
 
psionl0 said:
Maybe but the 1st amendment clearly says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...".

Requiring somebody to act contrary to their religious beliefs seems about as unconstitutional as it gets.

There are other alternatives such as refusing funding or certification to somebody who declares that they would not follow policy.
Click to expand...

This is where we differ. Exercise your religion at will in private setting. But as soon as you are hired in a fashion to serve the public, which clearly those catholic adoption outfit do, then you have to serve the whole public equally no matter race, gender, or sexuality the public is.

As far as I can tell it is *already* the case you cannot discriminate even on religious ground on race or gender. The problem is that religious ******* are now using the sexual discrimination because they were stopped on the others.

And that is where the failure lies, and why a secular state is vastly superior to what you have, as a secular state will not impede either on religion of people or the expression thereof, as long as that religious person does not impede on the right of others to be served indiscriminately.

Bottom line if you accept a job which may put you in contact with the public, you should not be allowed to discriminate.
 
Aepervius said:
This is where we differ. Exercise your religion at will in private setting.
Click to expand...
We all get that you don't believe in the free exercise of religion. It should be shamefully exercised underground and in secret.

Aepervius said:
Bottom line if you accept a job which may put you in contact with the public, you should not be allowed to discriminate.
Click to expand...
Bottom line you should not be offering jobs to people who's religious beliefs would prevent them from carrying out the duties you expect of them. ("Don't ask, don't tell" is not appropriate in these cases).
 
psionl0 said:
We all get that you don't believe in the free exercise of religion. It should be shamefully exercised underground and in secret.
Click to expand...

You are putting word I did not say in my mouth.
Public should not have to suffer the consequence of the religion or absence of religion of ANYBODY. The key point here is the public dealing with an entity having a function dealing with it.

Bottom line you should not be offering jobs to people who's religious beliefs would prevent them from carrying out the duties you expect of them. ("Don't ask, don't tell" is not appropriate in these cases).
Click to expand...

That is THEIR problem. When you accept a job you accept to do it completely. In its full function. I can't go to my employer, and tells him I am from a cult which forbid me to work dealing with blacks, women or transgender/gay. My employer EXPECT me to deal properly with the public.

That is a KEY point I repeat, and a point which can only make society better : once you start dealing with the public, you should not be able to discriminate against groups. If you want to discriminate, then tough titties get another job.

e.g. Kim Davies and her crusade to not deliver gay marriage license. Get another job. Get shifted to another post. Or GTFO.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
This is where we differ. Exercise your religion at will in private setting. But as soon as you are hired in a fashion to serve the public, which clearly those catholic adoption outfit do, then you have to serve the whole public equally no matter race, gender, or sexuality the public is.

As far as I can tell it is *already* the case you cannot discriminate even on religious ground on race or gender. The problem is that religious ******* are now using the sexual discrimination because they were stopped on the others.

And that is where the failure lies, and why a secular state is vastly superior to what you have, as a secular state will not impede either on religion of people or the expression thereof, as long as that religious person does not impede on the right of others to be served indiscriminately.

Bottom line if you accept a job which may put you in contact with the public, you should not be allowed to discriminate.
Click to expand...
I'm missing where the US Government has the constitutional authority to do that.
 
psionl0 said:
Maybe but the 1st amendment clearly says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...".

Requiring somebody to act contrary to their religious beliefs seems about as unconstitutional as it gets.

There are other alternatives such as refusing funding or certification to somebody who declares that they would not follow policy.
Click to expand...

How about a religion that requires virgin sacrifices? Are you familiar with the expression, "Your rights end where mine begin."
 
Oh and having religion private does not mean you have to go underground. YOu can still have a public religious life, e.g. church on sunday, teach your children at home or at sunday school about religion, and keep your religious dealing in your private life. You just have to keep it private as in : your private life. Pretending I say it must disappear and go underground is a strawman.
 
There is a famous (paraphrased) expression : You can recognize how advanced a society is, by seeing how they are dealing with their weakest member, e.g. prisoner and handicapped.

I would expend that to : you can see how morally advanced a society , by seeing the numbers of way somebody serving the public can be allowed unpunitively to discriminate against the public for factor irrelevant to the transaction.
 
A person who is a public servant, when performing his or her public duty, performs it as the public servant, not the person. A public servant holds no religious beliefs. The public servant is a part of the state.

This is really simple.
 
Ziggurat said:
You seem to have confused intentions with results. Her intentions may have been to improve the health of children, but that doesn't mean that's what happened. Take for example the sodium restrictions that Michelle pushed for. That's to make kids healthier, right? Except it now turns out that sodium doesn't have the negative health consequences the government kept claiming. Michelle was making food taste like crap for no actual benefit.

Government efforts to control American diets have been on the whole a disaster.
Click to expand...

Health standards change. She may have been wrong on particular issues, but she was attacked for even attempting to upgrade dietary standards.
 
WilliamSeger said:
How about a religion that requires virgin sacrifices? Are you familiar with the expression, "Your rights end where mine begin."
Click to expand...
There are other provisions in the constitution that deal with "life", "limb", "liberty" and "property".

I'm pretty sure that somebody can't declare that they are Muslim and therefore have a constitutional right to execute any and all "infidel" citizens of the US.
 
psionl0 said:
There are other provisions in the constitution that deal with "life", "limb", "liberty" and "property".

I'm pretty sure that somebody can't declare that they are Muslim and therefore have a constitutional right to execute any and all "infidel" citizens of the US.
Click to expand...

Almost correct, except that you can't use religious freedom as an excuse for disobeying any law, including anti-discrimination laws.
 
psionl0 said:
There are other provisions in the constitution that deal with "life", "limb", "liberty" and "property".

I'm pretty sure that somebody can't declare that they are Muslim and therefore have a constitutional right to execute any and all "infidel" citizens of the US.
Click to expand...

Yes, but many of the "religious freedom" Right wingers will complain about Sharia law while trying to pass laws with a Christian bent to them. They complain that Muslims want to control their women, while trying to outlaw abortion and contraceptives.

In short, this nonsense is not about religious freedom. It is about protecting bigotry and discrimination as a right of White, heterosexual, Christians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom