I received this today and thought it would make for a nice and civil debate.

 

http://www.focuspetitions.com/125/petition.asp?PID=14523135&NID=1

I received this today and thought it would make for a nice and civil debate.

 

http://www.focuspetitions.com/125/petition.asp?PID=14523135&NID=1

 

So you put it here?

So you put it here?

 

I have faith in the BGP nation.

I'm strongly against both bills and it has nothing to do with religion.

I respect you greatly, LBBC, but I disagree wholeheartedly that either of the bills are an attack on religious freedom. Religious freedom is the freedom from a "state" religion, not freedom from reprisal toward others not in line with your beliefs.

I respect you greatly, LBBC, but I disagree wholeheartedly that either of the bills are an attack on religious freedom. Religious freedom is the freedom from a "state" religion, not freedom from reprisal toward others not in line with your beliefs.

Let me say that was the website's view and I have not formulated mine. As I do several times, I put things on BGP waiting for the debate to help me formulate and give me reasons to come to the opinion I will have on an issue.

 

That is what I am doing here. I have not formulated my opinion yet.

 

Dad why are you against the bills?

The title of the thread threw me.

I respect you greatly, LBBC, but I disagree wholeheartedly that either of the bills are an attack on religious freedom. Religious freedom is the freedom from a "state" religion, not freedom from reprisal toward others not in line with your beliefs.

If you limit a religion's freedom to preach on the behavior that is prohibited by their faith, are you not limiting their religious freedom?

Dad why are you against the bills?

I'm against all hate crime legislation. I think crimes should be adjudicated based on what happened, not necessarily why. The only time circumstances or motivation should come into play is when the circumstances are mitigating (such as a woman killing her abusive husband) or show a motivation that would indicate the likelihood of guilt (gold digger having her rich husband killed). A person who commits a crime against someone because they are black, gay or Muslim should suffer no worse than anyone else who commits the same crime on a different person or a person of the same class.

 

I'm also strongly against the government telling private entities (publicly held or mom and pop) who they must hire, sell to, rent to, etc. Only government entities should be prohibited from discriminating.

Nice and Civil...Oh well I'll leave.

From the website above:

 

Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, a ministry to people who are unhappy with their same-sex attraction, said he and the people he counsels illustrate the inequity.

 

“This legislation says that we -- as former homosexuals -- are of less value and worth less legal protection now,” he said, “than when we were living as homosexuals.

If you limit a religion's freedom to preach on the behavior that is prohibited by their faith, are you not limiting their religious freedom?

 

 

It depends on what your speech both says and inspires others to do about those with that behavior.

 

For example, the Klan did a good job of whipping up hatred among some (Byron DelayBeckwith for one) into going out and killing Medgar Evers. The Grand Cylcops of Miss. also whipped up the gang in the killing of the 3 Civil Rights Workers portrayed in "Miss. Burning."

 

During the Rwandan Genocide of '94 there were some who had radio shows that whipped the Hutu's into a killing frienzy and they were held culpable to the genocide by Human Rights Courts.

 

 

To proclaim Homosexuality as a sin, even an abhorant sin to God is not the issue. (IMHO) The issue is the Fred Phelp kind of extremism that may lead someone to perpetrate an act of violence on a random homosexual because of their life choices.

Am I missing something? Where is one's religous freedom being limited by these bills?

BY the way, is there a book that teaches folks how to whip up the masses?

 

Dr. Dobson used all of the code words early. "Nancy Pelosi-led Congress" "Ted Kennedy" "reward to homosexual ACTIVISTS".

Am I missing something? Where is one's religous freedom being limited by these bills?

 

If you are an religious orgnization, and a homosexual applies for a job, and you tell him, "We will not consider your application because you are homosexual and we believe that is wrong and counter to our mission here," under ENDA you could be sued under a cause of action for discrimination.

 

I don't know how it gets any plainer than that.

 

ENDA was initially drafted in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the Boy Scouts, and now they have the Congress to pass it.