Idaho Bill Legalizing Discrimination Withdrawn

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 7:20 AM GMT
    This bill would have allowed anyone to refuse service to a person of a different sexual orientation based on a professed religious belief - basically legalizing sexual segregation and allowing not only businesses, but doctors, police from serving a person who they believe violates their religious belief on sexual orientation.

    http://m.localnews8.com/news/Idaho-rep-withdraws-religious-freedom-bill/-/22687724/24559526/-/12pw1p5z/-/index.html#.UwUI1HsuDbk.facebook
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 7:41 AM GMT
    An Idaho mother's plea to "Add the words".........
    (referring to still pending legislation to add sexual orientation to Idaho's non-discriminatory laws.

    [url][/url]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 2:43 PM GMT


    So exactly how was this expensive game orchestrated by fiscal conservatives fiscally conservative? I'd love to see the dollar amount for the tax money paid to those politicians and the cost of tabling this bill, as well as the costs associated with it having to be debated etc in gov't.
  • Being

    Posts: 191

    Feb 20, 2014 4:29 PM GMT
    I support the bill. I see nothing wrong. And no, I'm not being a troll. It's just that if people don't want to serve gay couples or gay people, why should they.
  • JArking

    Posts: 139

    Feb 20, 2014 4:35 PM GMT
    textilemaker saidI support the bill. I see nothing wrong. And no, I'm not being a troll. It's just that if people don't want to serve gay couples or gay people, why should they.


    I think it is all about this thing called discrimination and whatnot. People have grown attached to this idea that they deserve to be treated like, I don't know, people and not some kind of animal or criminal. It's weird right? I'm sure plenty of people would love to expand on this and improve it a bit, you know? Include the right to turn away anyone whom their religion deems inferior, it would help prevent a lot of the riff-raff from going where they don't belong.

    FYI this is sarcasm.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 4:39 PM GMT
    textilemaker saidI support the bill. I see nothing wrong. And no, I'm not being a troll. It's just that if people don't want to serve gay couples or gay people, why should they.


    Great, then perhaps you should be banned pronto so you can understand your own sentiment better.
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Feb 20, 2014 4:44 PM GMT
    textilemaker saidI support the bill. I see nothing wrong. And no, I'm not being a troll. It's just that if people don't want to serve gay couples or gay people, why should they.

    Yeah that's how a society should work. People in service industries, especially people in government funded services like police, fire, emergency medical and etc… Yeah EVERYONE should be allowed to REFUSE SERVICES to EVERYONE else based on their prejudices. I have no idea if you are gay or not but if you LOOK like you MIGHT be gay and I'm a fireman and your house is on fire. Fuck the hell out of you, dude! Your house can go up in flames and if spreads to your neighbors house, why the fuck should I care, after all he looks like a Jew.

    So, yeah, I think it is a great idea to let EVERYONE'S prejudices dictate whether or not they provide services to everyone else. I aint got no religion but don't make no nevermind cuz I got my gun rack and my swastika tattoo on my forehead. {spits} icon_rolleyes.gif
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Feb 20, 2014 4:45 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    textilemaker saidI support the bill. I see nothing wrong. And no, I'm not being a troll. It's just that if people don't want to serve gay couples or gay people, why should they.


    Great, then perhaps you should be banned pronto so you can understand your own sentiment better.

    Seconded!
  • JArking

    Posts: 139

    Feb 20, 2014 4:47 PM GMT
    Question: I thought the bill didn't apply to emergency situations? Or was it life threatening only?
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Feb 20, 2014 4:59 PM GMT
    JArking saidQuestion: I thought the bill didn't apply to emergency situations? Or was it life threatening only?

    Does it matter? Why do we need to have an "intelligent" and "rational" discussion about something like this? That is, something that is irrational to begin with. Ok, lets say I go into a restaurant and someone refuses to wait on me. WHAT exactly is their refusal based on? An establishment has the right to refuse service to anyone based on any number of criteria. Perhaps I'm not wearing a shirt or shoes for example. BUT, if I'm wearing shoes and a shirt and I walk into a restaurant, how the fucking hell do they KNOW I'm gay or anything else? I could also be wearing my glitter beehive, a pink tutu and red feather boa -- THAT isn't any sure sign of what genitalia get my motor running.

    The point being the whole thing is ridiculous. It is based on nothing but PRESUMPTION and PREJUDICE. A serious waste of everyone's time and attention.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 20, 2014 5:12 PM GMT
    Christians take such pride in publicly refusing to treat gay people as their neighbors. Jesus must be so pleased to have sewn the seeds of intolerance and hatred in His people.
  • JArking

    Posts: 139

    Feb 20, 2014 5:13 PM GMT
    MikeW said
    Does it matter? Why do we need to have an "intelligent" and "rational" discussion about something like this?


    Yeah I'm going to ignore your little story because if you'd read anything I've posted you'd know I agree with the sentiment opposing this law and don't need your explanation to sway my opinion.

    That said, an "intelligent" and "rational" discussion helps levy support for a cause over possible misleading wildly exaggerated statements meant to instill fear. That kind of attitude is tantamount to people saying "the gays are going to cause the world to end" and it doesn't help your case when you're not spreading facts but lies. I asked for some clarification, an honest question because I thought I may have read something wrong, you don't want to answer that's ok, I'm sorry I offended you by wanting to know where you got your information. But please don't ask me to lower myself to the same level of an irrational bigot to get my point across.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 20, 2014 5:15 PM GMT
    JArking saidQuestion: I thought the bill didn't apply to emergency situations? Or was it life threatening only?

    Nah, it's their religious freedom to treat us like lepers. God made gays so straights would have someone to defecate on.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 20, 2014 5:16 PM GMT
    JArking said
    MikeW said
    Does it matter? Why do we need to have an "intelligent" and "rational" discussion about something like this?


    Yeah I'm going to ignore your little story because if you'd read anything I've posted you'd know I agree with the sentiment opposing this law and don't need your explanation to sway my opinion.

    That said, an "intelligent" and "rational" discussion helps levy support for a cause over possible misleading wildly exaggerated statements meant to instill fear. That kind of attitude is tantamount to people saying "the gays are going to cause the world to end" and it doesn't help your case when you're not spreading facts but lies. I asked for some clarification, an honest question because I thought I may have read something wrong, you don't want to answer that's ok, I'm sorry I offended you by wanting to know where you got your information. But please don't ask me to lower myself to the same level of an irrational bigot to get my point across.

    And what is your point?
  • JArking

    Posts: 139

    Feb 20, 2014 5:20 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    What's your point?


    My point was that discussing things in a rational and intelligent manner is better than jumping to wild conclusions and supplying false evidence to back an argument.

    Edit: In general my point, would be any opinion I have and want to share. I realize he didn't ask for my opinion and was only reacting to a simple question I had but I don't see how my question merited the kind of response it got. Do I take it, sure it doesn't answer my question in the slightest and I don't agree with it, but I'll take it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 5:23 PM GMT
    JArking saidQuestion: I thought the bill didn't apply to emergency situations? Or was it life threatening only?


    Here: It applies to anything, up to and including those you mentioned above.

    http://legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2014/H0427.pdf

  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 20, 2014 5:26 PM GMT
    JArking said
    HottJoe said
    What's your point?


    My point was that discussing things in a rational and intelligent manner is better than jumping to wild conclusions and supplying false evidence to back an argument.

    Do you think discriminating against gays based on religious beliefs is acceptable in non emergency situations?
  • JArking

    Posts: 139

    Feb 20, 2014 5:27 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    JArking saidQuestion: I thought the bill didn't apply to emergency situations? Or was it life threatening only?


    Here: It applies to anything, up to and including those you mentioned above.

    http://legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2014/H0427.pdf

    Thanks it's the Kansas bill I had this confused with. It stated that within emergency situations that law would not take marital status into question. Though even that was a broad statement and did not accurately address the concerns so yes in either situation these bills suck.
  • JArking

    Posts: 139

    Feb 20, 2014 5:30 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    Do you think discriminating against gays based on religious beliefs is acceptable in non emergency situations?


    ...if you'd read anything I've posted you'd know I agree with the sentiment opposing this law and don't need your explanation to sway my opinion...

    So, nope. I just was unsure about the coverage of this law and how far it could reach. I had read earlier last week that the Kansas law would not be applicable in emergency situations and thought that perhaps the same would be for the Idaho law.
  • JArking

    Posts: 139

    Feb 20, 2014 5:44 PM GMT
    I've posted on this too much but I feel like I may have overstepped myself and would rather apologize now than have a lingering feeling of "omg they all hate me" over my head all day.

    I do think that misinformation in any sense is problematic when trying to counter an argument or take a stance. Was I looking for it when questioning whether emergency situations were exempt from this law? Nope. In fact I was more surprised/shocked by possible differences in these laws from state to state seeing as Idaho, Arizona, and Kansas have been working on the same/similar discriminatory bill. I don't support this bill or anyone who supports it but I do think an intelligent and rational conversation is helpful. I voiced my opinion rather harshly and for that I am sorry, but I do stand by my opinion of cool and calculated responses trump emotionally driven reactions.

    Again I don't support the bill, and was simply looking to know what differences there were, if any between the many bills being tossed around. My apologies for the attitude earlier in response to my question.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 5:50 PM GMT

    lol JArking, I don't hate you, and don't think others do either. I think you just stood a few people's hair on end for a moment, lol.

    Now rest that worry and put a bounce in your steps today (it'll give you nice calves).
    I like you.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 20, 2014 5:53 PM GMT
    JArking said
    HottJoe said
    Do you think discriminating against gays based on religious beliefs is acceptable in non emergency situations?


    ...if you'd read anything I've posted you'd know I agree with the sentiment opposing this law and don't need your explanation to sway my opinion...

    So, nope. I just was unsure about the coverage of this law and how far it could reach. I had read earlier last week that the Kansas law would not be applicable in emergency situations and thought that perhaps the same would be for the Idaho law.

    Either way, the laws are discriminatory, so I'm not sure why you're distinguishing between police discriminating in emergency v non emergency situations. If the police can discriminate against gay people in ANY situation then they are not the police; they are thugs, and calling 911 would be risky....

  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Feb 20, 2014 6:07 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    JArking said
    HottJoe said
    Do you think discriminating against gays based on religious beliefs is acceptable in non emergency situations?


    ...if you'd read anything I've posted you'd know I agree with the sentiment opposing this law and don't need your explanation to sway my opinion...

    So, nope. I just was unsure about the coverage of this law and how far it could reach. I had read earlier last week that the Kansas law would not be applicable in emergency situations and thought that perhaps the same would be for the Idaho law.

    Either way, the laws are discriminatory, so I'm not sure why you're distinguishing between police discriminating in emergency v non emergency situations. If the police can discriminate against gay people in ANY situation then they are not the police; they are thugs, and calling 911 would be risky....

    My point was there is no way of KNOWING someone's sexual orientation just by looking at them. That homophobic jerks think they can just shows how ignorant they really are.

    The religious right is getting desperate. That's why I'm so irritated… that they think *anyone* outside their bigoted world view would take these bills seriously. The bill's authors and their constituents should be made the laughing stock of our democracy.
  • JArking

    Posts: 139

    Feb 20, 2014 6:14 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    Either way, the laws are discriminatory, so I'm not sure why you're distinguishing between police discriminating in emergency v non emergency situations. If the police can discriminate against gay people in ANY situation then they are not the police; they are thugs, and calling 911 would be risky....


    Ah, I assumed that personnel working as nurses, police, firefighters etc. would be exempt from the protections this law provides based on religious beliefs all-together as they would be defined as "emergency personnel" regardless of the situation but I see what you mean. My mistake.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 20, 2014 6:17 PM GMT
    ^I guess the OP should have put it in bold lettering.

    moscowmikey saidThis bill would have allowed anyone to refuse service to a person of a different sexual orientation based on a professed religious belief - basically legalizing sexual segregation and allowing not only businesses, but doctors, police from serving a person who they believe violates their religious belief on sexual orientation.

    http://m.localnews8.com/news/Idaho-rep-withdraws-religious-freedom-bill/-/22687724/24559526/-/12pw1p5z/-/index.html#.UwUI1HsuDbk.facebook