Oklahoma State Senator Joseph Silk is sponsoring the “Oklahoma Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2015" which allows business and shop owners to refuse service to homosexuals.
Joseph Silk has evidently taken another GOP idiot pill.
It appears that they live on idiot pills, or maybe the party can only attract idiots, due to it's impressively closed minded worldviews.
Joseph is claiming that a gay person purchasing goods and services from a business, encrouches on that business owner's religious freedom. Such utter bull, demonstrates Silk's brain-dead homophobic stupidity.
The amount of rational thinking that went into the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is an absolute zero.
Silk evidently has the rationality of a five year old and I'd insult all five year old children if I claimed equal knowledge of reality for Silk.
Excerpt from the first source:
" Silk explained that members of the LGBT movement need to be sensitive to the rights of religious business owners, which trump their rights as consumers and citizens.
“They don’t have a right to be served in every single store,” he said. “People need to have the ability to refuse service if its violates their religious convictions.”
According to Silk’s bill, businesses — including non-profits — would have the right to deny, “Services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, and goods or privileges,” to anyone who offends their religious sensibilities.
Additionally businesses could refuse to provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services, while also refusing to hire a person based upon their gender or sexual orientation."
Senator Joseph Silk appears to be one very sick puppy.
Demonstrating that GOP is indeed full of immoral idiots.
In my business, I have clients whose beliefs and practices that I don't agree with, some I may even find offensive, yet, they pay good money for my services, so they have a right to service and good advice. There is no reason why an exchange of goods and services should be denied on a religious belief basis. I treat all beliefs equally, that is what secularism is about.
The Salvation Army is a Christian organization that continually assists those whose practices it finds offensive to Christian beliefs, yet, my friends in the Salvos, would not even consider for a second, withdrawing services from those that offend them.
Because they consider it Christian to help all people, regardless of race, gender or sexuality.
What Senator Joseph Silk is proposing is absolutely UNCHRISTIAN!
It flies in the face of anti-discrimination legislation, much of which was actually proposed by Christians in the first place.
He should be ashamed of himself for being such a discriminatory BIGOT.
Those businesses that claim to be offended by serving gays are also being entirely, bigoted, discriminatory and totally UNCHRISTIAN.
They too should be ashamed of themselves for proposing such irrational discrimination.
BTW: Joseph Silk claims to have gay friends, yet he is sponsoring a homophobic policy.
I too have devoutly Christian and Islamic friends and business clients, whose beliefs I find in some cases horrifying which is why I'm an Anti-Theist, yet I would not sponsor a policy to deny those I find offensive services.
If it is government/state policy to allow a group of people equal rights, every citizen should abide by that ruling, I included.
Though I would like religions to pay taxes, which has nothing to do with the followers of those religions.
I separate the individuals from the collective.
I treat individuals on how they treat myself, good friends and clients will remain good friends and clients, regardless of beliefs of their collective body which occasionally offend me.
DD, I agree that Silk is a useless degenerate, lowlife bigot, who has no business acting as an elected representative. There is one point you raise with which I adamantly disagree. You state that Silk and those that support his actions are UNCHRISTIAN. To the contrary. They are the epitome of Christianity.
Silk and his followers are doing exactly what his death cult dictates. Those who do not think like you, act like you, believe like you, and accept your particular superstition are to be reviled and condemned. Your Big Book of Jewish and Christian Fairy Tales says so - at least the parts you cherry pick. They will tell you being gay is an abomination, while they're eating shrimp cocktail. So is eating the shrimp, but they conveniently ignore the perfect and eternal word of their god on that one. Unlike the moderate religionists who give the fundamentalists cover, I'd rather deal with SilK or the late Fred Phelps. At least I know they're wanting to put a knife in my stomach. The moderates are smiling at me, shaking my hand, and aiming for my back when I'm not looking.
I don't disagree with you Pat, as there are many flavours of Christianity.
My point is that the flavour some of my friends adhere to are almost secular in nature as we here are very secular, which even includes many of the Christians.
As society changes towards secularism, the existing religions in that secular nation also move towards supporting secularism, something the U.S. hasn't developed properly as yet.
The U.S. Christians are still fighting against secularism, where the Christians here have lost the fight and now are embracing it.
This is a point I'm making and I'm calling Silk unchristian for the benefit of Christians reading my blog, it is not really for atheists benefit that I make that point as we atheists don't care about what is Christian and what is not.
Especially those like myself who are anti-theist, to us Christianity is ugly, regardless of how secular they try to make themselves.
By pointing them out as Un-Christian makes them think about what it means to be Christian and sometimes this creates a bigger change in their thinking than directly attacking Christianity as is my normal tactic.
I'm softening my attack, that is all.
Otherwise I'd be calling all Christians idiots.
In other words, I'm trying a different approach in my blogs, just for fun.
Uncle Homer's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That explains it. Homer and his friends don't want to serve you and their reasoning is religious clowns.
Well, something like that.
business and shop owners to refuse service to homosexuals.
well, how the owners know if the customer who is gay? I don't look like gay male but true, I am gay male ( tattoos, beard, masculine look guy) It don't work.
LOL, True, though if same sex couples walk in holding hands or kissing, oops, suddenly no service.
Though what if a carer, such as a friend of mine, who looks after sight impaired people, was to walk in guiding one of her female clients by the hand, they may refuse her service, even though she is simply guiding a blind person through the shop.
I think some shop owners may spend a lot of time apologizing and fighting customers if they tried to implement the bill.
Rational shop owners would ignore it, because it is not worth the hassles it can create.
Though the bill is actually good in a way, because it highlights the stupidity of GOP and public attacks on it, like this blog, only serve to alert the public of such stupidity and hopefully, remove more GOP supporters and force the republican party to move in the right direction.
They can still be conservative and be secular.
Our liberal party here is extremely conservative, as well as fully supporting secularism.
The Salvation Army is a Christian organization that continually assists those whose practices it finds offensive to [their] beliefs...
Actually, the Salvation Army has a long and active history of discrimination, against both clients and employees. They close programs for the homeless and for seniors rather than abide by nondiscrimination laws. Also, as Bil Browning writes, "They blatantly ignore the position statement and deny LGBT people services unless they renounce their sexuality, end same-sex relationships, or, in some cases, attend services 'open to all who confess Christ as Savior and who accept and abide by The Salvation Army's doctrine and discipline.' In other words, if you're gay or lesbian, you don't qualify."
They've lobbied for anti-gay laws and against legal reform in the UK and New Zealand, and lobbied for special exception to nondiscrimination laws in the US. They've also given religious tests to their government-funded social service employees, and fired a caseworker after discovering she was bisexual.
Back to the people they assist -- Bil Browning again: "I've seen the discrimination the Salvation Army preaches first hand. When a former boyfriend and I were homeless, the Salvation Army insisted we break up before they'd offer assistance. We slept on the street instead."
Yes Grinning, you are of course correct, in that the national body of the Salvation Army are entirely bigoted, homophobic and essentially morally corrupt.
This is a reason I have stopped collecting charity for them, where I door knocked for several years to help them out, I no longer do that after revelations on the aspirations of their national body.
Though the local Salvos that I know embrace secularism, they often don't agree with the rest of the hierarchy, it was their friendship that had me offering to help collect donations, but although they haven't altered in their attitudes, I cannot collect for an organization with their overall policies and doctrines.
So I was using them as strawmen, in my softly softly attack to make Joseph Silk appear un-Christian.
I wish my friends did represent the doctrines of the Salvos, then it would be a truly secular body.
In that case, I would still be collecting for them.
When I was a Christian, I understood the teachings of Jesus, apart from leave your families and follow him, were humanistic and somewhat secular in nature.
It was under this notion that I drifted into Christianity.
It was finding out that this was not the case and the gross deception within the churches that I shot out of Christianity like a fireball from a cannon.
Firing back at them ever since as an anti-theist.
This blog was an attempt to soften my anti-theistic approach and appeal to the Christian consciousness of those Christians who happen to read my blog, by posing (although strawmen) that Christianity can embrace secularism and still be Christian in nature.
It is possible for this as many Christian groups in Australia have embraced secularism and if you ventured into a church of the same name in the U.S. or Britain, you would not know that you are associated with the same sect.
Many Christian churches are considered by their equivalent in the U.S. as lazy and apathetic to their cause and teaching.
They keep trying to make their Australian branches active in pushing their religion, but, the Australian branches won't tow the line, as they would automatically face rejection by the community.
This is the power of secularism when properly implemented.
Those religions that jump up and make a noise, get rejected and denigrated, by the bulk of the population.