Wave of State/City RFRAs

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Keith, Would you explain to me why a business that deals in goods and services, other than those which are necessary for the sustaining of life, be required deal with any one who happens to have the cash or decent credit?

You have said "Their 'owner’s' must abide by the conditions of the law. But what "right" does the state have to dictate such a law. In what real way is the person who is denied such services being harmed.

[William Thornton]

I think Keith is mixed up in regard to discrimination.

In areas with no LGBT non-discrimination statutes, I believe businesses may discriminate. And I don't see the tattooed as a protected class anywhere, nor that phantom crowd singled out everywhere for no service - the shirtless and shoeless.

Some areas have LGBT non-discrimination laws. The state can and has used its power to crush a few who, by reason of their religious beliefs refused certain services to LGBT people. Exactly how these cases will work out, I'm not certain.

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Georgia doesn't although some communities. Neither does Alabama, statewide.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Need a bit of work excising your emotional thinking, bro, if such is a hindrance to logical thinking.

Utah and (I think) Indiana gained a RFRA measure by passing a gay non-discrimination law. This may be the way these things go.

Suppose you are rejoicing in the power exercised by Big Bidness who is the real driver of gay rights.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Let's see...all that pressure in IN, AR, & GA from geneticists and brain researchers?

It should be easy to link homosexuality and genetics. Wonder why it hasn't been done and trumpeted loudly?

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

These are two separate issues.

The issue of discrimination is simply a matter of constitutional guarantees of individual rights and freedoms. While there have been a few aberrant rulings in recent years (Citizens United, Hobby Lobby), generally and consistently the courts have elevated individual rights over those of business entities, regardless of the religious convictions of the business ownership. The incorporated status of most business, whether single owner or not, generally separates the business itself from the individual rights of the owner. In most states, a business can declare bankruptcy, but the owners personal assets remain protected from collection. If you own a business, you can hold whatever view you like, but you can't discriminate in hiring practices on the basis of religion. If businesses can be told that they can't discriminate in hiring practices, even though that may violate the owner's religious convictions, then it stands to reason that it cannot discriminate in whom it chooses to serve. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether or not homosexual behavior is genetic, learned, or acquired, discrimination is discrimination. The United States, as a nation, is not operating under a covenant relationship with God. He never offered one to us. We are under the new covenant, so what the nation and its leaders do that is either pleasing, or not pleasing, to God has no bearing at all on my faith or its future.

Whether or not homosexual behavior is related to genetics has nothing to do with rights. Whether it does or does not have genetic causes is irrelevant to the discussion of individual rights. Personally, as I see it, the great weight of scientific evidence still points to causes other than heredity and genetics for homosexual behavior. Those studies that suggest otherwise are either of dubious origin or motivation, or have been proven to be fraudulent or hoaxes. It is an unfortunate consequence of fallen humanity that followers of Christ fall into the trap of excluding, judging and consigning people they consider to be sinners to hell. I don't think God is pleased with the judgmental, condemning attitudes that most Christians have toward gays and lesbians. But I think he is equally displeased with those in the Christian community who, by refusing to acknowledge homosexual behavior as the sin that it is, also condemn those who are trapped in it to hell by convincing them that they don't need the saving message of the gospel.

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

[William Thornton]

Some physiological factor (a 'gay' gene) has always been the holy grail in this. I've watched and read this business for several decades and have seen many stories like the one linked come and go. I had already read this one.

That said, I'm not sure what a so-called gay gene would establish - attraction? Compulsion? Behavior?

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Sandy when you say "I'll go with the generally accepted conclusion that homosexuality is the result of external, psychological factors, not genetics."

Would you object to a slight revision so that it reads [I'll go with the generally accepted conclusion that homosexuality is the result of external, psychological & sociological factors, not genetics.] Also, Keith may balk at ''the "generally a accepted conclusion" portion.

[Haruo]

How about the very real possibility that "homosexuality" is a grab-bag term for a number of different conditions, some environmentally conditioned, some genetically determined, some willfully chosen. It's like the very real possibility that "wings" are quite different things in bats, birds, bees, and bomberpilots.

[KeithE]

[KeithE]