Posted on 02/27/2014 11:06:06 AM PST by connell
SB 1062 is not about religious freedom, it's about forced labor.
For the last few days, I, like many Americans, have been furious about SB 1062 . . . only I have been angry for a different reason than most.
Opponents are angry because they think the bill is "mean" or that it allows discrimination against certain groups of people. Some people are even claiming that it somehow mandates discrimination.
Supporters are angry because they don't like the idea that a private citizen can be forced to engage in a transaction that violates his or her religious beliefs.
I am angry because I believe most of the discussion on SB 1062 is missing a much more basic point. Yes, it is chilling that a private citizen might be forced to engage in a transaction that violates his or her religious beliefs. But has no one considered that it is also chilling that a private citizen would be forced to engage in any transaction?
A slave is . . .
But how is it that we are okay with the first two? How is it that so few people are even discussing the fact that our society is forcing one human being to labor for another against his...
(Excerpt) Read more at westernfreepress.com ...
If discrimination against a gay wedding because of religious convictions are against the law, how do you explain this:
Obama Inc. Sues Trucking Company for Firing Muslim Drivers Who Refused to Deliver Alcohol
Why is the Muslim’s religious convictions more worthy of protection by the Obama administration than the Christian’s?
All businesses will be forced to have gender neutral bathrooms, allow any dog in the business, serve anyone who is not wearing shoes or a shirt and you can just make the list longer.
If there is no standard and you can be forced to act against your religious conscience the what is a community, city, state or country?.
In fact, there should be no borders.
/s
She’s John Mc Lame in a skirt.
I am still working on my movie - Outlawing Normal.
Before our Federal Politicians in “both” political parties stuck a PC “Left Fork” into our Constitution, the sign in the window that read: “The owner of this establishment reserves the right to refuse service to anyone.” was held to be the Owner’s Fair Notice of his protected Liberty called: Freedom of Choice.
I dig it man.
Keep me updated
Martin Luther King (MLK) was a strong influence to forward this evil conscience about discrimination - an individual's right to choose associations. MLK confused the individual morality issue of choosing to exclude blacks with the legal and constitutional issue of the federal government's power and authority to interfere with an individual's choices. (MLK has become some sort of "untouchable" - "Oh, how could you say that about MLK?")
So now, discrimination is generally thought of as a bad word. In American consciousness and lexicon, discrimination is a "bad" thing, making no distinction between an individual's legal right to discriminate and his private moral decision about whether it is "right" to do so. This evil conscience needs to be countered and corrected whenever and wherever possible because an individual has every legal right and duty to discriminate. This is not to be confused with an individual’s moral right and duty to examine how and where they exercise their right which is an issue between that person and his God and no one else. And the federal government has no constitutional power to interfere with either an individual’s legal right or moral right.
So an important step to in taking back our freedoms is changing the consciousness of as many people as possible in the country from thinking that discrimination is "bad" to realizing that discrimination is our God-given right of freedom of choice. Not a five-minute job and may very well require God himself to do that. But people like me will shout it from the mountaintops every chance we get.
So having said all that, what will it take to either override the veto or generate a proposition to amend the AZ constitution? If neither, and you’re an AZ resident consider moving to a state that will uphold your right to discriminate.
Liberal quandary: what happens when a Muslim walks into a homosexual owned business and demands a sign or cake that says “I hate queers”?
Or vice a versa
If only there was a law that allow them to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
oh well
It is slavery. If I own my business and want to refuse service to anyone I should have the right to do that. If I don’t want to have gays or muslims or blacks in my store it is my right to decide.
My Business. My Choice
In fact, there should be no borders.
/s”
Just a matter of time
But why would any gay couple WANT to have Phelps officiate their wedding, and at Westboro of all places? It doesn't matter whether any "rational" gay couple would want that or not, only that they have the POWER to FORCE him to.
I’ve been saying this for a while. It should not even be a religious issue really (although that is important due to the 1st Amendment) but the real danger here is that ANY decision to elect to not do business with someone (whether based on religion or not) is now subject to a charge of discrimination and possible punishment.
We are slaves now.
Amen. But slaves eventually are freed, or revolt.
I think you know the answer to that question. This is not about a principle for them. it is about power, and deconstruction and Frankfurt-School critical theory.
Freedom of choice . . . . imagine that.
Just like I was once told I was not welcome in a club because of my skin color. That was their right.
That’s it exactly. This is about deconstruction and power, not principles.
I discriminated yesterday when I bought chocolate cupcake ice cream at the supermarket rather than maple walnut.
It would help if about 150 million others knew that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.