California bans travel to Alabama, 7 other states:

[PnkPanther]

I don't know which part you mean since none of it is wrong.

I disagree private citizens are a church.

Religious freedom. Practice your religion, that doesn't mean you get to discriminate and go, hey, it's what I believe

 

[socaljim242]

No, adoption isn't like shopping for TV's, but in both instances there are multiple options to choose from. I'm assuming that in Alabama there are at least a couple foster care/adoption agencies that are completely secular and have no issue with adopting out to gay parents. Likewise, there are probably several agencies that were originally started by churches or are faith-based, and they would like the option to place all their children with opposite-sex couples.

I can't think of any reason why both shouldn't be allowed to operate as they choose, regardless of whether or not they receive government funding for any part of their budget. It's unreasonable for the government to dictate that people/agencies stop exercising their religious beliefs just because they took gov't money. That comes close to nullifying the free exercise clause of the first amendment

Then don't take public money.

 

[4down20]

You do realize you live in America right? You're cool with a no Blacks allowed sing in front of a restaurant? You're a sad sad man if you are. And the whole then dont go there is you're answer then your parents did a poor job and your school did a poor job.

No, I'm not "cool" with it. At all. I think it's disguisting. I'm not racist and I would never patronge a business that did such things.

But it's their right as a private citizen, no matter if you like it or not.

I'm not ok with the government forcing it, as use to be the case in the south with Jim Crow laws in anyway.

 

[PnkPanther]

No, adoption isn't like shopping for TV's, but in both instances there are multiple options to choose from. I'm assuming that in Alabama there are at least a couple foster care/adoption agencies that are completely secular and have no issue with adopting out to gay parents. Likewise, there are probably several agencies that were originally started by churches or are faith-based, and they would like the option to place all their children with opposite-sex couples.

I can't think of any reason why both shouldn't be allowed to operate as they choose, regardless of whether or not they receive government funding for any part of their budget. It's unreasonable for the government to dictate that people/agencies stop exercising their religious beliefs just because they took gov't money. That comes close to nullifying the free exercise clause of the first amendment

I'm still not sure how allowing gay people to adopt is denying religious freedom

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

Then don't take public money.

Not that simple.

Can the government tell welfare recipients that they cannot attend church because they have received public money?

 

[4down20]

I disagree private citizens are a church.

Religious freedom. Practice your religion, that doesn't mean you get to discriminate and go, hey, it's what I believe

A physical church has absolutely no rights on it's own, it's the private citizens that give it it's freedom to start with.

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.

You are not only trying to prohibit people from their free exercise of religion, you are trying to force them to act in defiance of it.

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

I'm still not sure how allowing gay people to adopt is denying religious freedom

I'm guessing if it was a part of your religious beliefs you might see it?

 

[romeo212000]

I'm still not sure how allowing gay people to adopt is denying religious freedom

Aren't some adoption programs run by churches?

 

[4down20]

A bakery isn't a Church. What part of this don't you get? lol. I can be a Satanist and am free to practice it all I want. But if i get a city licence and pay taxes and serve the public I can't discriminate against Christians.

A church is nothing more than an extension of private citizens, the same as a business.

You're basically saying only Churches are "Free belief zones".

 

[socaljim242]

No, I'm not "cool" with it. At all. I think it's disguisting. I'm not racist and I would never patronge a business that did such things.

But it's their right as a private citizen, no matter if you like it or not.

I'm not ok with the government forcing it, as use to be the case in the south with Jim Crow laws in anyway.

We all have certain rights given to us as citizens of this country. Unlike some we don't allow a business (you hear that? Business) to discriminate against a citizen because of certain reasons , race being one of them. So while most feel its wrong and despicable that a person would not want to serve a black- asian - Hispanic and yes even a white person there are some piss poor people who would do that and the goverment is in charge of Protecting our rights. Everyones rights. So no you can't open a restaurant anywhere and discriminate just because you don't like one of those groups because as an American many fought and died for our freedoms. Now you want to go hang out with other like you and have a party , go for it. You wanna have a parade , have fun. But you can't open an ice cream shop and put up a sign saying now Hispanics-Blacks.

 

[socaljim242]

A church is nothing more than an extension of private citizens, the same as a business.

You're basically saying only Churches are "Free belief zones".

You seriously need to go get your GED or something. You have no idea about our Bill of rights.

 

[romeo212000]

We all have certain rights given to us as citizens of this country. Unlike some we don't allow a business (you hear that? Business) to discriminate against a citizen because of certain reasons , race being one of them. So while most feel its wrong and despicable that a person would not want to serve a black- asian - Hispanic and yes even a white person there are some piss poor people who would do that and the goverment is in charge of Protecting our rights. Everyones rights. So no you can't open a restaurant anywhere and discriminate just because you don't like one of those groups because as an American many fought and died for our freedoms

The fact that you qualify your statement with "yes, even a white person" is a perfect example of how people have gotten so fucked up in the head over race and the like.

 

[socaljim242]

The fact that you qualify your statement with "yes, even a white person" is a perfect example of how people have gotten so fucked up in the head over race and the like.

Well I have to include that because some people think this only protects Blacks. It's for everyone. My son is fourth generation American and is now a Marine( as I was for eight years) It would be a sad thing for him to go with his buddies to a restaurant somewhere in the United States and be told we dont serve Hispanics.

 

[romeo212000]

Well I have to include that because some people think this only protects Blacks. It's for everyone. My son is fourth generation American and is now a Marine( as I was for eight years) It would be a sad thing for him to go with his buddies to a restaurant somewhere in the United States and be told we dont serve Hispanics.

But that's the thing. That's how people see racism. Like we include whites, but only because we kind of have to. I mean, honestly if you say the word "racism" to most people in America I'd bet more than 90% of them picture a white person as the racist whether they admit it or not.

Sure it would, but I believe that business would starve because the vast majority of people would say "fuck that place."

 

[4down20]

We all have certain rights given to us as citizens of this country. Unlike some we don't allow a business (you hear that? Business) to discriminate against a citizen because of certain reasons , race being one of them. So while most feel its wrong and despicable that a person would not want to serve a black- asian - Hispanic and yes even a white person there are some piss poor people who would do that and the goverment is in charge of Protecting our rights. Everyones rights. So no you can't open a restaurant anywhere and discriminate just because you don't like one of those groups because as an American many fought and died for our freedoms

Actually, our rights are inalienable, they are not given to us. Our governments duty is to protect them, and to deny them would be holding it's people captive.

And Businesses are not owned by government, they are owned by private citizens. If they were owned by government, you would be absolutely correct. But since they aren't, you are wrong.

And that's why they needed to create a loophole in the commerce clause to legally justify doing what they do.

I stick up for the rights of people even when I disagree with them. That seems difficult for people who want to push their beliefs and social values to understand. It's funny because my argument won't change no matter if it's sticking up for gay peoples rights, or stick up for racist peoples rights - but yours will.

 

[fknhippie]

Well I have to include that because some people think this only protects Blacks. It's for everyone. My son is fourth generation American and is now a Marine( as I was for eight years) It would be a sad thing for him to go with his buddies to a restaurant somewhere in the United States and be told we dont serve Hispanics.

I think you have to serve Hispanics, but you don't have to serve Mexicans.

 

[4down20]

Well I have to include that because some people think this only protects Blacks. It's for everyone. My son is fourth generation American and is now a Marine( as I was for eight years) It would be a sad thing for him to go with his buddies to a restaurant somewhere in the United States and be told we dont serve Hispanics.

1 - it's not really going to happen.
2 - why the fuck do you want to eat there?

 

[socaljim242]

But that's the thing. That's how people see racism. Like we include whites, but only because we kind of have to. I mean, honestly if you say the word "racism" to most people in America I'd bet more than 90% of them picture a white person as the racist whether they admit it or not.

Sure it would, but I believe that business would starve because the vast majority of people would say "fuck that place."

But it doesn't matter if the place will starve. There are plenty of assholes out there so maybe it wouldnt. But the point is it doesn't matter if no one would go or if its got plenty of business. You can't discriminate against an American citizen because of the color of his skin or where his ancestors came from. It's our- everyones right. You can be a racist all you want. But there's some things you're not allowed to do.

 

[socaljim242]

Actually, our rights are inalienable, they are not given to us. Our governments duty is to protect them, and to deny them would be holding it's people captive.

And Businesses are not owned by government, they are owned by private citizens. If they were owned by government, you would be absolutely correct. But since they aren't, you are wrong.

And that's why they needed to create a loophole in the commerce clause to legally justify doing what they do.

I stick up for the rights of people even when I disagree with them. That seems difficult for people who want to push their beliefs and social values to understand. It's funny because my argument won't change no matter if it's sticking up for gay peoples rights, or stick up for racist peoples rights - but yours will.

GED get one.

 

[4down20]

GED get one.

But you'll still be stupid, so what's the point?