tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post7596286616690026106..comments2024-03-28T13:08:26.494-04:00Comments on Religion & American Law: Religious liberty or discrimination?Brantley Gasawayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02894338478934982958noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-67639956722505338252016-02-02T19:27:01.525-05:002016-02-02T19:27:01.525-05:00This bill, like others have said, is clearly contr...This bill, like others have said, is clearly controversial for obvious reasons. However, the bill in itself somewhat contradicts the premise of religious freedom. Our rights allow us to freely practice our respective religions, but it does not allow people of one religion to force others to follow the rules and values of their own religion. This bill states that someone of a particular religious group can deny service to someone based off of the fact that the person goes against their religious beliefs. But can we not view it from the other perspective and say that the customer being refused service is not obligated to conform to the religious beliefs of the store owner? I understand that the businesses are private, but agreeing with Caroline, these are individual civil rights that are being infringed upon. This bill seems unconstitutional in all aspects. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12250575197713864884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-75541813041356687272016-02-02T14:16:11.158-05:002016-02-02T14:16:11.158-05:00Georgia Senate Bill 129 is evidently a highly cont...Georgia Senate Bill 129 is evidently a highly controversial bill because it aims to allow businesses to deny service to particular customers based upon sexual orientation. The bill has lost a lot of support due to its lack of an anti-discrimination clause- I did not fully understand the argument that this would "gut" the bill's purpose because the premise of the bill is that a religious belief permits denial of service- which would in theory mean that a religious belief excludes these business owners from being discriminatory. Otherwise the intention of the bill would be characterized as unconstitutional- it is illegal in this country to discriminate against an individual based upon sexual orientation. Although I understand that some religions believe that homosexuality is wrong- I do not think that religion should trump individual liberties in this case. Although these businesses are private, it is still an infringement of an individual's civil rights to bar them from service. This reminds me of integration because a lot of people thought that white people and black people should not be served at the same restaurants or drink from the same fountain- however their personal beliefs did not allow them to deny individuals service after the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. The individual's belief in segregation did not permit them to deny the civil liberties of others. Caroline S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02285203706163455398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-28189877213729517062016-02-02T13:53:38.554-05:002016-02-02T13:53:38.554-05:00I believe that the bill seems very unconstitutiona...I believe that the bill seems very unconstitutional as it is. It is illegal to discriminate against other factors such as race and gender, so why shouldn't sexuality be protected as well. There is a religious sect which prohibits women from wearing pants. If someone of this faith owned a store that sold clothing, would they be allowed to prohibit women from buying pants? Can a business refuse service to someone because of what their religion may say about race? What if they are wearing something that violates their religion like another religion's symbol, or the example of a woman wearing pants? No, this would be deemed unconstitutional discrimination. Sexuality should absolutely be something that is covered under all anti-discrimination acts, just like other forms of personal identity. Race, religion, gender, and sex are all protected nation wide against discrimination. These are all personal identities that do not interfere with someone's ability to perform tasks or function in society, and since sexuality is also such an important part of personal identity that doesn't inhibit performance in society it should also be protected throughout the country. Another point to be made is that sexuality is someone's own personal preference. A business cannot refuse a public service to someone because their private beliefs or opinions differ from the beliefs of the business owner. A vegan restaurant can't refuse service to non-vegans because owners see their normal meat-eating as wrong, and a conservative store owner can't stop a young girl from buying tight-fitting clothing because they believe in modesty. A business offering some public service cannot, or at least shouldn't be allowed to, force customers to accept the business owner's personal ideals and lifestyles before offering the service.Sara G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01321061951171721833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-19328887937364893992016-02-01T21:14:12.960-05:002016-02-01T21:14:12.960-05:00This is a very difficult situation in which people...This is a very difficult situation in which people need to decide what is more important, religious beliefs or individual rights? I agree that this bill should not be passed unless it has some sort of anti-discriminatory clause (however, I also agree that the purpose of the bill would then be "gutted" should there be such a clause added). Religion is definitely important, but when a person decides to enter the public working place, they need to realize that not everyone follows their beliefs or their religion, so they need to be respectful of others. The bill is unconstitutional in that it violates the rights of certain individuals, relative to the religion of the person denying another certain services.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11162152839272037606noreply@blogger.com