San Antonio = Nuremberg, 1935

[CrystalHunter1989]

http://news.yahoo.com/frc-praises-texas-leaders-standing-religious-freedom-opposing-204400615.html

If Texas ever wants my respect again, they had better fix this....quick.

[Well-Prepared Witch]

That's the first I've ever heard of Texas being anti-Christian.  Usually it's the other way around with their legislature going out of their way to exclude any non-Christians.  Looks like this is a press release from the Family Research Council, not exactly an impartial source.  The press release doesn't give an actual ordinance number or any other specific information to research it further.  I did try Googling it, but couldn't find anything other than the press release.  Do you have more details?

[USMC0331]

So it took 3 articles before I found a link to the document they are talking about (and they say journalism is dead?!) https://webapps1.sanantonio.gov/rfcadocs/R_10799_20130909042840.pdf

It looks like people can't discriminate based on people wanting to be "Pat" from what I gathered.  I'm Christian and have no problems with a community wanting to protect the "Pats" that live in them. 

You don't want to play by the Devil's rules, don't deal with the Devil.  You want to stand up for your right to not provide services to the "Pats" of the world, then do so, but having morals can cost you in a society that does not share them.

Christians want to put God back into America?  Get off you arse and do something or STFU and take it.  You let them make your bed for you, now sleep in it.  Stopping the murder of unborn children might be a good place for the church to start, but you will never see it happen, they made their deal, it's called a 503c contract.

[JohnyMac]

DVC, your link doesn't work.

On another note The Blaze had an article on it but I can't find it.

[USMC0331]

Fixed link

[crudos]

That's the first I've ever heard of Texas being anti-Christian.  Usually it's the other way around with their legislature going out of their way to exclude any non-Christians.  Looks like this is a press release from the Family Research Council, not exactly an impartial source.  The press release doesn't give an actual ordinance number or any other specific information to research it further.  I did try Googling it, but couldn't find anything other than the press release.  Do you have more details?

Yeah, it's totally a press release from FRC, and a horribly written one too. Press release does not equal journalism, just saying.

[Well-Prepared Witch]

DVC, what's a Pat?

Also, I read through your link and it sounds like it's just your typical non-discrimination stuff.  There's even something in there saying religious groups can hire only people of their own religious persuasion if they want.  I'm still confused as to what the FRC is all up-in-arms about.

[special-k]

...what's a Pat?

It's Pat SNL intro

[Well-Prepared Witch]

Oh! Trans-gendered and gender-queer folks?  I didn't know they weren't already legally protected from discrimination.  That's what's upsetting people?  Huh.  Weird.

[USMC0331]

I think the big issue is that Christians feel they should be allowed to refuse service to people that are offensive to them such as Homos and Pats.

 I agree that they should be allowed that right when they run their own business but when they are being paid by the public via contracts with the state, they should not be allowed that right as those groups have received protection from the state by legal means.

If Texas declares child molesters a protected group like alcoholics (its a disease remember?) then Christians that subcontract for the state are required to put up with it.

If a bigot runs a restaurant he should be allowed to run it his way even if that means refusing service to people based on prejudice, as long as they receive no public funds or contracts.  That's my 2cents.

Your "right" to eat at my restaurant does not override my right to decide who I want to feed.   Or it didn't until .gov said you will feed who we tell you to.

[Well-Prepared Witch]

Well, I have a bit of a different view.  My opinion is that as soon as you offer services to the public your right to discriminate is gone.  If you're just feeding your friends, congregation and/or a private club, I think an argument for being able to exclude and discriminate can be made (even if I do feel it is morally wrong), but if anyone can come in off the street to purchase from you I think it is not only morally wrong, but legally discriminatory, to refuse to serve people who you don't like.  I also don't feel that "homos and Pats" are not worthy individuals and members of society deserving the same rights and responsibilities that everyone else has.  I know from personal experience that LGBTQ people are no more or less different from any other people, any more than whites are from blacks or men are from women.  We may have some differences, but we're all humans.

[special-k]

I was going to make a comment about collectivist bullshit... but I decided not to.

[/end thinly veiled disapproval]

 

[crudos]

Well, I have a bit of a different view.  My opinion is that as soon as you offer services to the public your right to discriminate is gone.  If you're just feeding your friends, congregation and/or a private club, I think an argument for being able to exclude and discriminate can be made (even if I do feel it is morally wrong), but if anyone can come in off the street to purchase from you I think it is not only morally wrong, but legally discriminatory, to refuse to serve people who you don't like.  I also don't feel that "homos and Pats" are not worthy individuals and members of society deserving the same rights and responsibilities that everyone else has.  I know from personal experience that LGBTQ people are no more or less different from any other people, any more than whites are from blacks or men are from women.  We may have some differences, but we're all humans.

Good post Wellie. 

[USMC0331]

Well, I have a bit of a different view.  My opinion is that as soon as you offer services to the public your right to discriminate is gone.  If you're just feeding your friends, congregation and/or a private club, I think an argument for being able to exclude and discriminate can be made (even if I do feel it is morally wrong),...

That's exactly what I said isn't it?  Public being those you are contracted to serve via a state contract.

...but if anyone can come in off the street to purchase from you I think it is not only morally wrong, but legally discriminatory, to refuse to serve people who you don't like.

If I want to sell widgets to my neighbors only and am doing so as a private businessman, I should not be required to sell the same widgets to those outside of my neighborhood.  I should have the right to sell to anyone I want unless under contract with the "public" which I would not define as any individual able to come through my business door, which seems to be the definition used in your statement.

I also don't feel that "homos and Pats" are not worthy individuals and members of society deserving the same rights and responsibilities that everyone else has.

I believe it to be morally wrong to discriminate also, but morals have nothing to do with rights.  Rights exist without morals, the Founding Fathers all agreed on that much.

[JohnyMac]

Mmmm.

So if you are a doctor and a Catholic to boot; should the government be able to force you to perform abortions if your religion prohibits this act? If you are a baker and a Mormon should the government be able to force you to make a cake for a homosexual wedding if your religion prohibits this union?

There is no provision in the US Constitution for "separation of church and state" unlike what the main stream media would like to believe.  There is though this thing called the first Amendment which states...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If my memory serves me, many early colonists left England and Europe because they were not allowed to worship "their" region as they saw fit. Governments told these people that you have to worship as "we" say.

So in my opinion, if a restaurant owner say's, "I will not serve Christians because I am Muslim and Christians are infidels as written in the Koran." I do not have a problem with that. I will vote with my dollar and just not eat there. I will not ask "my" government to punish the above mentioned restaurant owner.

That's my 2?...

[USMC0331]

JohnyMac gets it.