What Happy Pigs & Bigoted Weasels Have In Common

[Webster]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUfjUqEdqhc

Last week, Senator James Lankford (Oklahoma) and Representative Randy Forbes (Virginia) jumped on the fact that Chipotle suspended a pork supplier for failing to provide proper animal care. Then they twisted that news through a tangle of logic until it was sly justification for businesses to refuse service to LGBTs.

What do happy pigs have to do with discrimination? Not much.

But with "Religious Freedom" laws popping up all around the country, we're going to see more weasely false-equivalencies appearing in the news.

Let's unpack why a company's decision to to run its business according to a code of ethics DOES NOT mean that business owners can discriminate against anyone their religion does not approve of.

....still care to defend religious freedom in this regard?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Again! There business there right to practice there business as they see fit and if that means under "religious freedom" so be it. Do you really want to be giving your hard earned money to a business that really hates your guts?

 

[Webster]

Again! There business there right to practice there business as they see fit and if that means under "religious freedom" so be it. Do you really want to be giving your hard earned money to a business that really hates your guts?

That's not the point, Liberty....the point here, in a broad sense, is that religious liberty should not be used as a cudgel to discriminate against people because the very same arguments that can be used to discriminate agst. gay people can also be sued agst. Jews, Muslims, women...atheists, etc,etc. Religious liberty's already in the Constitution, so why is there a need to add it into statutory law unless there's an underlying reason to do so?

Oh, wait...I forgot: government's not supposed to go there; silly me...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Again! There business there right to practice there business as they see fit and if that means under "religious freedom" so be it. Do you really want to be giving your hard earned money to a business that really hates your guts?

That's not the point, Liberty....the point here, in a broad sense, is that religious liberty should not be used as a cudgel to discriminate against people because the very same arguments that can be used to discriminate agst. gay people can also be sued agst. Jews, Muslims, women...atheists, etc,etc. Religious liberty's already in the Constitution, so why is there a need to add it into statutory law unless there's an underlying reason to do so?

Oh, wait...I forgot: government's not supposed to go there; silly me...

I could care less what they call it. If religious freedom gets us there so be it. But if any person no matter what they believe or do not believe for whatever reason they deem fit because they hate the color of your tee shirt if they want. I don't care what the reason is but if the person does not want to provide you a service no person or government should have the right to force them to do so. 

I want a open society where I know very clearly when I am spending my money that the person serving me has every right to give me there business or not to give me there business. Just like I have every right to go to a place that holds my values where I want to spend my money.

Do you believe that the majority of people in America are that bad of people where we can't make the right decision and choices on how to run a business or where Americans will spend there money that we need a morally bankrupt government defining those morals for us. NOT ME! NO THANK YOU!