HSX Forum

TVStocks, MusicStocks and Life

Reply Topic List All Forums

report abuse

As I understand it, that's not the controversial part of the bill. Of course religious orgs should be able to decline to perform same-sex

Posted by: RogerMore on Mar 28, 10:11 in response to RollingThunder's post I don't agree with the firing aspect; however, are you...

if they choose to do so. But that's not really an issue that is up for debate - I haven't heard of any same-sex couples suing a church saying "you have to marry us", and any law that required a church to perform a same-sex marriage would be unconstitutional. If that right is already protected by the Constitution, and is not an issue anyway, what's the point of the bill?

However, I do think that a private business should not be able to refuse someone service purely because of their sexuality. For example, a baker shouldn't be able to refuse to make a cake for a same-sex wedding because they don't agree with same sex marriage, a pharmacist shouldn't be able to refuse to carry a particular drug required by the healthcare system because of their religious beliefs, a charity shouldn't be able to refuse service to someone in need purely because they are of a different religion, etc

And the point of the bill, from what I've read, is the opposite. The baker would be able to say "I don't agree with your marriage. You're not welcome here". The pharmacist would be able to say "I don't want to do something that results in you committing a sin". The charity would be able to say "I'd rather help the faithful. Go somewhere else". It means people who are different can be easily excluded, and I don't think that's the way society should work.

Absolute garbage if one can discriminate against or fire for some supposed "sincerely held beliefs". Period. {nm} islander Mar 28, 09:39

I don't agree with the firing aspect; however, are you saying businesses should never be able to refuse services to another? RollingThunder Mar 28, 09:51

As I understand it, that's not the controversial part of the bill. Of course religious orgs should be able to decline to perform same-sex RogerMore Mar 28, 10:11

I agree with your very well-written points. On that level, I do see how people would abuse the real intent of the Bill. RollingThunder Mar 28, 10:16

if they are a public business, the law is clear that they can't discriminate {nm} slipping jimmy Mar 28, 11:07

Apologies everyone, busy at work! Trying to read thread now :) {nm} islander Mar 28, 13:31

My issue is with the bill because its a bad bill that could lead to worse bills. islander Mar 28, 14:13

All sincerely held beliefs, or only the ones you disagree with? shadowking Mar 28, 10:06

Anti-discrimination laws protect against discrimination based on certain grounds, such as gender, race, sexuality and religion. RogerMore Mar 28, 10:19

To clarify - Content of good required is ok to descriminate upon, purpose/ultimate use of said good not ok to descriminate based on? shadowking Mar 28, 10:41

No, you can discriminate based on content too. "Sorry, we don't stock male-male cake toppers and I won't order them in" is discrimination. RogerMore Mar 28, 12:55

By "you can discriminate based on content", I mean "discriminating based on content is not OK either" {nm} RogerMore Mar 28, 13:10

I assume the goal of the bill is to alter/ammend existing anti-discrimination law, so falling back on those laws as a criteria for shadowking Mar 28, 15:22

My understanding is that this bill wouldn't specifically alter any laws, but it includes a general provision that says something like... RogerMore Mar 28, 16:49

That is not a correct comparison DeanB Mar 28, 10:26