Religious people have no right to discriminate against gays

Oh, man. As if I needed another reason to hate religious bigotry.

But there it was, couldn't be ignored... a New York Times story that got my moral blood boiling: "Anticipating Nationwide Right to Same-Sex Marriage, States Weigh Religious Exemption Bills."

So what do these religious jerks want to be exempted from? Treating homosexual people with the same dignity and respect due everybody else. 

As it looks increasingly likely that the Supreme Court will establish a nationwide right to same-sex marriage later this year, state legislatures across the country are taking up bills that would make it easier for businesses and individuals to opt out of serving gay couples on religious grounds.

Many states are now reliving a version of events that embroiled Arizona in February 2014, when Jan Brewer, then the Republican governor, vetoed a bill that would have allowed businesses to use their religious beliefs as a legal justification for refusing to serve gay customers.

What's next, religious zealots? How far down the slippery immoral slope do you want to slide?

Should you be able to discriminate against people of color? Women? Jews? Muslims?

Why not form a religion that teaches Democrats like me are evil? Then you could require a Republican voter registration card before choosing to serve someone.

It's highly disturbing that this sort of crap is treated at all seriously in the 21st century.

Religious dogma has been used as an excuse for discrimination before. Slavery supposedly was God's will. As was denying women the right to vote.

Soon this sort of hatred in the name of religion will be viewed by people in the future with the same How the hell could they be so stupid? attitude that anti-black and anti-female views are looked upon today.

(Of course, those prejudices are still common among many true believers.)

This goes to show that if someone cares about morality, they should run from any form of religiosity.

Religions are notorious for promoting an egotistical "We're special, and you're not" viewpoint. In this case, it is gays who are God's unchosen people, while religious believers who choose hatred over love consider themselves, bizarrely, the chosen ones.

I'd very much like to have a religious person comment on this post and explain why he or she feels gay people should be discriminated against. 

Give me one good reason, just one.

I already know that no one can do this. I just want to show, as has been done on this blog countless times before, that true believers use religion to justify unethical behavior that wouldn't be tolerated by society otherwise.

It's absurd to give intolerance a pass just because someone conjures up a religious basis for it. The laws for religious people should be exactly the same as those for everybody else. 

If you want to act like a bigot, go ahead and face the consequences. Just don't make up crappy excuses for your prejudices like "God agrees with me." 

Naturally the moral high ground is not to believe in any god at all.

But if you have to rely on a religious crutch to make you feel like you're doing the right thing, choose an All-Loving God -- not the god of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or other divisive religions (which includes just about all of them).

Comments

[Elizabeth W]

'Should you be able to discriminate against people of colour? women? Jews? Muslims?"

Brian, who is the you in the above you are talking to? Without doubt it is the male as you mention women being distinctly of a different species which I find somewhat discriminatory, clearly displaying your prejudicial self.

[Brian Hines]

Elizabeth, without a doubt the "you" in that passage was meant to refer to a religious business owner who feels it is his or her divine right to discriminate against some sort of person.

I have no idea why this would be taken as being discriminatory. The passage previous makes it clear who I was speaking about:
------------------
"What's next, religious zealots? How far down the slippery immoral slope do you want to slide?

Should you be able to discriminate against people of color? Women? Jews? Muslims?"

[tucson]

Brian: "What's next, religious zealots? How far down the slippery immoral slope do you want to slide?

Should you be able to discriminate against people of color? Women? Jews? Muslims?"

tucson: I am not a religious zealot. I am not religious at all, so maybe your comment doesn't apply to me.

However, I feel that as a private business owner, religious or not, I should be able to refuse to sell my product to anyone I so please for whatever reason whether they be gay, straight, black, white, male or female, Muslim, Christian, blue eyes, barefoot, shorter than 6'2", bald, women with less than a DD cup, etc.

It's my private business, right? In reality I don't discriminate for any of those things except women with less than a DD cup.

[Brian Hines]

tucson, I realize there are arguments for taking the position that you laid out. This just happens to be against the law in Oregon (and other states, I assume). See:
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/02/sweet_cakes_by_melissa_discrim.html

Excerpt:
----------------
The controversy began in January 2013 when the Kleins turned away Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman from their bakery, saying that providing a cake for their wedding would have violated their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage.

In August 2013, the women complained to the state Bureau of Labor and Industries. The agency conducted an investigation and in January 2014 brought charges that the Kleins had unlawfully discriminated against the couple because of their sexual orientation.

Oregon law bans discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in jobs and in places that serve the public, such as restaurants and bakeries.

[tucson]

I think such anti-discrimination laws are just as wrong as the discrimination itself.

An exception would be businesses that provide essential/vital services like hospitals.

It is interesting that there is a congressional black caucus. Imagine the outrage if there was a congressional white caucus. Not sure this is germane to the issue at hand but the discussion made me think of this.

Societal engineering is just playing with mother nature. It throws things out of whack. Look at the med schools. My daughter's class is mostly shades of brown.. east Indians, blacks, Hispanics, Asians. She is one of only two or three Caucasoid blondes. That's why she got the scholarship (saved me $216 grand tuition. Whoopee! Why am I complaining?) They needed a honky female in there so as not to look too affirmatively active and discriminatory towards whites, but they do anyway. These days it is a disadvantage to be white, at least when it comes to med school admissions.

Rant over and I'm out.