Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Conservatives are willing to let Democrats pass the Equality Act, but only if they enshrine in the law the right of Christians to use "God told us to hate these people" as a legal basis for future discrimination   (washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Utah, Republican Party, civil rights protections, LGBTQ rights groups, member of the Fairness, Democratic Party, United States  
•       •       •

1011 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Feb 2021 at 1:54 PM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



105 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-02-26 11:29:30 AM  
Difficulty: If they manage to pass the bill w/o religious exceptions, SCOTUS will strike the whole thing down and no one will gain anything.
 
2021-02-26 12:14:13 PM  
As an atheist, I'm kinda ok with them having that exemption since it makes the discrimination entirely overt, rather than the passive stuff that we have now. I've got to imagine fewer and fewer people over time will be drawn to an institution that insists its hatred be exempted from law.
 
2021-02-26 1:05:02 PM  

SurfaceTension: As an atheist, I'm kinda ok with them having that exemption since it makes the discrimination entirely overt, rather than the passive stuff that we have now. I've got to imagine fewer and fewer people over time will be drawn to an institution that insists its hatred be exempted from law.


You have never, ever met a human being in your life, have you?
 
2021-02-26 1:24:01 PM  

phalamir: SurfaceTension: As an atheist, I'm kinda ok with them having that exemption since it makes the discrimination entirely overt, rather than the passive stuff that we have now. I've got to imagine fewer and fewer people over time will be drawn to an institution that insists its hatred be exempted from law.

You have never, ever met a human being in your life, have you?


I'm a sucker for believing in the best in others.
 
2021-02-26 1:40:53 PM  

GardenWeasel: Difficulty: If they manage to pass the bill w/o religious exceptions, SCOTUS will strike the whole thing down and no one will gain anything.


It would make a good casus belli for Biden to push expanding the Supreme Court if they did so.
 
2021-02-26 1:56:56 PM  
Fark them. That's not how this works. Their rights are already guaranteed by the 1A. Its literally that simple.
 
2021-02-26 1:56:59 PM  

SurfaceTension: phalamir: SurfaceTension: As an atheist, I'm kinda ok with them having that exemption since it makes the discrimination entirely overt, rather than the passive stuff that we have now. I've got to imagine fewer and fewer people over time will be drawn to an institution that insists its hatred be exempted from law.

You have never, ever met a human being in your life, have you?

I'm a sucker for believing in the best in others.


Problem; Enough people voted for Donald Trump in 2016 to make him the President.
Yeah, I'm pretty much out of "believing in better nature of people".
 
2021-02-26 1:58:06 PM  

GardenWeasel: Difficulty: If they manage to pass the bill w/o religious exceptions, SCOTUS will strike the whole thing down and no one will gain anything.


Oh they could just strip out the exemptions.

I kinda wanta say just do it, give them exemptions.  Let them loudly and proudly proclaim their intolerance watch society react.
 
2021-02-26 1:58:24 PM  

GardenWeasel: Difficulty: If they manage to pass the bill w/o religious exceptions, SCOTUS will strike the whole thing down and no one will gain anything.


Extra difficulty: If they're willing to do that without cause, then they'd be willing to do that even if this exception is added.

If the equality act applying to religious institutions really is unconstitutional, then we shouldn't need an exception in the law.  The constitution will provide the exception wherever it actually applies.
 
2021-02-26 1:58:50 PM  

INTERTRON: GardenWeasel: Difficulty: If they manage to pass the bill w/o religious exceptions, SCOTUS will strike the whole thing down and no one will gain anything.

Extra difficulty: If they're willing to do that without cause, then they'd be willing to do that even if this exception is added.

If the equality act applying to religious institutions really is unconstitutional, then we shouldn't need an exception in the law.  The constitution will provide the exception wherever it actually applies.


Roughly 40% of the country will cheer them on though,.
 
2021-02-26 1:59:06 PM  
Yeah if the conservatives are against what you are doing its probably the right thing to do.

Can anyone name a single peice of Republican supported legislation that didn't hurt someone or make their lives more difficult?

Why should we give a fark what they think on any issue? They just spent the last 4 years telling everyone not them to pound sand and suck it.
 
2021-02-26 1:59:12 PM  

SurfaceTension: phalamir: SurfaceTension: As an atheist, I'm kinda ok with them having that exemption since it makes the discrimination entirely overt, rather than the passive stuff that we have now. I've got to imagine fewer and fewer people over time will be drawn to an institution that insists its hatred be exempted from law.

You have never, ever met a human being in your life, have you?

I'm a sucker for believing in the best in others.


What if the others in question have no best?

/other than "exhales carbon dioxide, which is needed by plants"
 
2021-02-26 1:59:23 PM  
I believe this negotiating tactic can be summarized as "give us your gun or we'll shoot you"
 
2021-02-26 2:00:01 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-02-26 2:01:42 PM  

SurfaceTension: phalamir: SurfaceTension: As an atheist, I'm kinda ok with them having that exemption since it makes the discrimination entirely overt, rather than the passive stuff that we have now. I've got to imagine fewer and fewer people over time will be drawn to an institution that insists its hatred be exempted from law.

You have never, ever met a human being in your life, have you?

I'm a sucker for believing in the best in others.


Know how I know you're not queer?  

This isn't about repelling people from religion.  This is about protecting queer rights.  You're essentially arguing that religious people should get to persecute us in order for you to make an example of their bigotry.  Our suffering is not a tool for you to use for your own atheist agenda.  And I say this as an atheist myself.  An actually queer one.
 
2021-02-26 2:02:27 PM  
If you wish to refuse service to any demographic, that may be your right as a private business owner. I disagree, but some people can find a reasoning for it.

But you do not have the right to insult someone or fraudulently lead them along with promise of service only to deny service once you discover their membership in that demographic.

If you wish to discriminate, you must clearly and openly state exactly who it is you refuse to serve so that consumers can make an informed decision as to whether to patronize your business. You must also not display any signage that indicates you are open to the public at large, because you are not.
 
2021-02-26 2:02:31 PM  
We need to rethink and eliminate the 'free exercise' clause.
 
2021-02-26 2:02:51 PM  

RasIanI: Fark them. That's not how this works. Their rights are already guaranteed by the 1A. Its literally that simple.


...and by "rights", I mean the "religous liberty" fascists
 
2021-02-26 2:03:11 PM  
The whole point of this law is that there cannot be a religious exemption to it.
 
2021-02-26 2:03:43 PM  
Sure thing.

But only if it applies to other faiths as well. Pagans, Muslims, Jews and Catholics. Philosophical teachings such as, buddhism, astheticism, epicureanism and stoicism.

Will that work for you all?
 
2021-02-26 2:04:00 PM  

PirateKing: If you wish to refuse service to any demographic, that may be your right as a private business owner.


What?  That is absolutely not anyone's right.  This is exactly why protected classes exist.
 
2021-02-26 2:04:49 PM  

Surrender your boo-tah: Sure thing.

But only if it applies to other faiths as well. Pagans, Muslims, Jews and Catholics. Philosophical teachings such as, buddhism, astheticism, epicureanism and stoicism.

Will that work for you all?


Not for me.  An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.  Letting everyone discriminate doesn't magically make discrimination go away--it just makes things worse for more people.
 
2021-02-26 2:06:31 PM  

RasIanI: Fark them. That's not how this works. Their rights are already guaranteed by the 1A. Its literally that simple.


Wouldn't a religious exemption literally be establishing a religion, of which congress shall make no law?
 
2021-02-26 2:07:31 PM  
Our sincerely held religious beliefs are that the deity commands us to be vile assholes to everyone who does not respect us and our non-existent but totally racist deity.

Now, this seems like an obvious loophole that shouldn't be allowed. But if vile assholes have to join churches that tolerate or espouse racism in order to be exempt from equity laws? Hmm. It might not be such a bad idea that they voluntarily join Church of the Everlasting Dumbfarkery. At least we know where they stand, and it's not centered in the land of plausible deniability.

I think Democrats should accept the compromise. Let religion be the sanctuary of perversion.
 
2021-02-26 2:08:11 PM  
As a wiccan cledonomancer, I'm entitled to ethical peers and I must behave ethically myself.

If you're unethical, you cannot judge me.
Unethical people are adversaries.
 
2021-02-26 2:09:04 PM  
Discriminating against God's children  because of how He made them sounds like something that should get you smote.
 
2021-02-26 2:10:13 PM  
I thought god said to love everyone
 
2021-02-26 2:10:53 PM  

GardenWeasel: Difficulty: If they manage to pass the bill w/o religious exceptions, SCOTUS will strike the whole thing down and no one will gain anything.


Do you weasels ever do anything except make up excuses to half ass things?
 
2021-02-26 2:11:38 PM  

SurfaceTension: phalamir: SurfaceTension: As an atheist, I'm kinda ok with them having that exemption since it makes the discrimination entirely overt, rather than the passive stuff that we have now. I've got to imagine fewer and fewer people over time will be drawn to an institution that insists its hatred be exempted from law.

You have never, ever met a human being in your life, have you?

I'm a sucker for believing in the best in others.


Yet you post on Fark...
 
2021-02-26 2:11:41 PM  

SurfaceTension: As an atheist, I'm kinda ok with them having that exemption since it makes the discrimination entirely overt, rather than the passive stuff that we have now. I've got to imagine fewer and fewer people over time will be drawn to an institution that insists its hatred be exempted from law.


I just want this "God" pulled as a defendant when this law is used and the anti-discrimination suits begin.
 
2021-02-26 2:12:07 PM  

austerity101: PirateKing: If you wish to refuse service to any demographic, that may be your right as a private business owner.

What?  That is absolutely not anyone's right.  This is exactly why protected classes exist.


A private business should not have to give any reason to refuse service. They should be able to refuse service to whomever they want. The government sector however should not have that ability.

As it relates to employment however, the same rules do not apply.
 
2021-02-26 2:13:02 PM  

chrismurphy: Our sincerely held religious beliefs are that the deity commands us to be vile assholes to everyone who does not respect us and our non-existent but totally racist deity.

Now, this seems like an obvious loophole that shouldn't be allowed. But if vile assholes have to join churches that tolerate or espouse racism in order to be exempt from equity laws? Hmm. It might not be such a bad idea that they voluntarily join Church of the Everlasting Dumbfarkery. At least we know where they stand, and it's not centered in the land of plausible deniability.

I think Democrats should accept the compromise. Let religion be the sanctuary of perversion.


So you're willing to let queer people suffer so you can make an example of Christians, too?

Why is that a position that anyone is holding right now, let alone more than one person in this thread?  I urge you to think your cunning plan all the way through.
 
2021-02-26 2:13:16 PM  
If I start a business, can I discriminate against everyone who is a Republican?
 
2021-02-26 2:13:20 PM  
"Specifically enshrining religious discrimination against LGBTQ people into law will show everyone how tolerant religions are towards the LGBTQ community and go a long way towards ending discrimination."

What the fark is this article I just read?
 
2021-02-26 2:13:50 PM  
If your church wants to be a bigot, tax it at 90%.  You want to join the 21st century an include ALL people you can continue to be tax free.
 
2021-02-26 2:14:47 PM  
My god says it is proper to deny Christians the right to vote. I will respect what Christians believe only if they respect what I believe.
 
2021-02-26 2:14:55 PM  

Glorious Golden Ass: Discriminating against God's children  because of how He made them sounds like something that should get you smote.


This is why religious people are so adamant about queerness being a choice--if it isn't, then their entire argument falls apart.  You can't hate people if we can't help it, so they decided we can help it, but we're choosing not to.
 
2021-02-26 2:15:47 PM  
What's even the point of an Equality law that gives an exception to the exact people that make the law necessary in the first place?
 
2021-02-26 2:15:57 PM  

epyonyx: If I start a business, can I discriminate against everyone who is a Republican?


If you have a deeply held religious belief that what they're doing goes against your teachings, then yes!

THANKS SCOTUS!!!
 
2021-02-26 2:16:48 PM  
fark that shiat.

Even if the exemptions were "narrow" it would be a wedge that is chipped away at through courts just like abortion has been. But I guaran-farking-tee you that Senate Republicans won't support any bill unless the exemptions are utterly massive to the point of making the law pointless. They would turn the law into a token measure so they can refuse future action because they already did that.

The only religious exemption to anti-discrimination laws should be for religious organization directly in religious roles (ie the Catholic Church can refuse to hire women as priests, but the person mowing the church lawn gets all the protections).
 
2021-02-26 2:17:37 PM  

shut_it_down: What's even the point of an Equality law that gives an exception to the exact people that make the law necessary in the first place?


Thread was done in one:

GardenWeasel: Difficulty: If they manage to pass the bill w/o religious exceptions, SCOTUS will strike the whole thing down and no one will gain anything.

 
2021-02-26 2:17:39 PM  

austerity101: PirateKing: If you wish to refuse service to any demographic, that may be your right as a private business owner.

What?  That is absolutely not anyone's right.  This is exactly why protected classes exist.


I mean that you, as a private person, can choose who you do business with.

If I offer services to 'members only', or 'by appointment', then I am not obligated to do business with anyone I choose not to.

But if I put an 'Open' sign on the door and offer services to the public at large, I don't get to choose who to do business with, since I don't get to decide who counts as 'the public'. Even then, if it's not a service you would offer to anyone, it isn't a service you can be forced to offer: vis a vis Kosher Deli being forced to serve ham. They wouldn't serve ham to anyone, thus can't be forced to serve it. A baker who wouldn't write Nazi slogans on any cake can't be made to write that for anyone.

But a baker who would make a cake for anyone, but refuses to make that same cake for a gay person, yet who says 'Open' on the door is committing a minor fraud, in my opinion. That's in addition to their bigoted assholery, which they have the right to, but which nobody has to respect.

I absolutely believe in protected classes, but I do think there's necessarily a distinction between private and public accommodation. The problem is that religious people want it both ways: they want the benefits of being public businesses while not having to compromise what they see as their morals.

I'm not a lawyer, I will admit that this is not a legal opinion and has nothing to do with the ways the laws are actually written. I just think that the collision of individual rights here is happening at a different place than a lot of people do.
 
2021-02-26 2:19:37 PM  

austerity101: SurfaceTension: phalamir: SurfaceTension: As an atheist, I'm kinda ok with them having that exemption since it makes the discrimination entirely overt, rather than the passive stuff that we have now. I've got to imagine fewer and fewer people over time will be drawn to an institution that insists its hatred be exempted from law.

You have never, ever met a human being in your life, have you?

I'm a sucker for believing in the best in others.

Know how I know you're not queer?  

This isn't about repelling people from religion.  This is about protecting queer rights.  You're essentially arguing that religious people should get to persecute us in order for you to make an example of their bigotry.  Our suffering is not a tool for you to use for your own atheist agenda.  And I say this as an atheist myself.  An actually queer one.


Here, here
 
2021-02-26 2:20:05 PM  

Glorious Golden Ass: Discriminating against God's children  because of how He made them sounds like something that should get you smote.


Pope "Smite Them!!" FamilyGuy
Youtube O1pX359pQQQ
 
2021-02-26 2:20:06 PM  
It's a shame all these Christians are being conscripted against their will and forced to work for companies whose policies conflict with what they believe their religious tenets to be. If they had the right to choose their workplace, they could select places more in line with their values. And of course, because the employers essentially abducted them and chained them to their workstations, it would be even more immoral to say "I know you think birth control is sinful, but this pharmacy sells it and you're the cashier, so take the money and dispense the meds".

I wonder if "right to work" states could argue that religions are essentially acting as unions, and demand that they either collectively bargain in good faith or end their illegal strikes...
 
2021-02-26 2:20:12 PM  

epyonyx: If I start a business, can I discriminate against everyone who is a Republican?


You can do that anyways. Political affiliation is not yet a protected class.
 
2021-02-26 2:20:56 PM  

misanthropicsob: GardenWeasel: Difficulty: If they manage to pass the bill w/o religious exceptions, SCOTUS will strike the whole thing down and no one will gain anything.

Do you weasels ever do anything except make up excuses to half ass things?


I'm not making excuses. I'm saying read the room and pass bills accordingly. Thar be dragons.
 
2021-02-26 2:21:06 PM  

phalamir: SurfaceTension: As an atheist, I'm kinda ok with them having that exemption since it makes the discrimination entirely overt, rather than the passive stuff that we have now. I've got to imagine fewer and fewer people over time will be drawn to an institution that insists its hatred be exempted from law.

You have never, ever met a human being in your life, have you?


Well, if we're stereotyping we might think at least he's never been to Kentucky. But as it turns out, maybe quite a lot of us haven't been to Wisconsin and wouldn't think of it in terms of being one of, let alone the worst state for racial inequality.

https://www.zippia.com/advice/racial-​d​isparity-worst-states/

And Kentucky isn't so bad on that list. Except of course they keep electing McConnell and Paul.
 
2021-02-26 2:21:25 PM  
The god that conservatives worship has never existed. They hide behind a book of fairy tales to justify their rights to be bigoted, racist, Nazi cock-sores.
 
2021-02-26 2:23:10 PM  

GardenWeasel: Difficulty: If they manage to pass the bill w/o religious exceptions, SCOTUS will strike the whole thing down and no one will gain anything.


OK, so Christians are free to discriminate against LGBTQ people inside their churches, and nowhere else.  LGBTQ people, along with humans in general, are advised to avoid churches.

Actually churches are already exempted from all sorts of civil rights stuff.  They can discriminate on the basis of religion (is the the Pope Catholic?), refuse to marry mixed race couples, and a few are still officially, openly, white-only.
 
Displayed 50 of 105 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.