Houston Approves Expanded Protections for Gays


#1

Houston leaders on Wednesday approved expanded anti-bias protections for gay and transgender residents in a measure that critics argued would impede their religious liberties.

abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/houston-council-approves-gay-rights-ordinance-23906683

Apparently this could impede religious liberty in Houston. :frowning:


#2

Did you not read the part about religious group being excluded? So your rights will be upheld while you get to continue discriminating and bashing gays.

I’m sorry are homosexuals not people in this country? Are you proud that people actually fought to keep discriminating them? Really? How Christian of you. Yuck!


#3

Of course homosexuals are people in this country and they should not be unjustly discriminated against. I never once said that they should.

However, the article clearly states that this could impede religious liberties.


#4

Shelby, I am sorry but I think you misunderstood me. I am totally against unjust discrimination against homosexuals. However, I fear that this law is also going to prohibit just discrimination. What I mean by just discrimination is like when a baker refuses to bake a “wedding cake” for a “gay wedding”. People should have a right to follow their consciences when it comes to something like that. When it comes to things like refusing to hire someone at a gas station just because they are gay, that is very wrong.

I mentioned the religious liberty thing because the article mentions it. It even said that pastors were afraid they wouldn’t be able to speak out against homosexuality. That would be a definite violation of their religious liberty, don’t you think?

Also, please don’t get the idea that I hate gay people. I most definitely do not. I suffer from same sex attraction myself (as well as opposite sex attraction). I have a friend who is gay as well. I also know two other people who are very close to me who are bisexual.


#5

I strongly recommend this video about “gay marriage” and how it affects our religious liberty:

catholic.com/video/how-redefining-marriage-affects-your-religious-liberty


#6

Please forgive me, I did misunderstand you stance. As for the baker, that is just bad business and I don’t see why that would matter as he is not promoting anything.

as for Pastors, yes while in Church they should have the right to preach what the beliefs of their church, again it seems like they will still be able to do that. I don’t think people who are not like ourselves should be discriminated, not for race, religion, intellectual ability, sexual orientation etc. We don’t need to approve or agree but discriminating is not right. However, everyone has the right to how they feel and think, they just cannot withhold rights .


#7

It’s alright. I forgive you. :slight_smile:


#8

You… are a good Catholic! Im impressed.


#9

There have been pastors panicking that a bill is going to limit their religious freedom even when it explicitly includes religious exemptions.


#10

I still don’t understand why, in a supposedly free society where all people are considered equal, we have protected classes and a federal government that promotes the interests of one group of people over another, often at the expense of the non-protected classes.

I also don’t understand how anyone can justify the government, federal, state, or local, telling private businesses who they can or cannot engage in trade with, or telling private individuals who they can or cannot contract with


#11

Because we live in a supposedly free society where all people are considered equal where de facto there is still heavy discrimination against certain classes of people. On paper in the 1930s black people had rights however try explaining that who lived near Hawthorne California.


#12

America is more of a fascist state where the government uses private industry to carry out its objectives. The whole Civil Rights concept is anti-freedom. It is one thing to prohibit actions. It is another to require actions. Civil Rights require actions. Requiring people to perform actions is more slavery than freedom. The modern imposition of Positive Rights is at odds with the principles of freedom that America was founded under. Whether that concept of freedom was good or bad it is no longer the foundation of American government or society.


#13

I’m truly amazed at the amount of legal actions to promote gay rights over the past decade. Something tells me that this lifestyle will increase in the future.

I thank God for my religious liberation.

LOVE! :heart:


#14

Well, can you really blame them? The HHS Mandate supposedly had religious exemptions but it did not truly exempt all religious organizations.


#15

What exactly is discrimination? Do you have any evidence of “heavy” discrimination against certain classes nowadays? What classes?

Does discrimination justify giving certain classes benefits that others do not have, especially at the expense of those other classes?

Shouldn’t we have a government that promotes the rights of all of its citizens, not just certain classes?


#16

That would depend upon how broadly you interpret the term “religious organization.” No one would dispute that a church qualifies. Is a social welfare organization which is sponsored by, but independent of, a church also a religious organization? A broad interpretation would say yes. A narrow interpretation would say no.

Past experience, in other locales, suggest that the narrow interpretation will prevail in the courts. We have seen that with regard to adoption/foster care, although that matter is complicated by the adoption agency’s role as a contract employee of the state. A clearer example would be the decision by the Archdiocese of Washington to drop spousal benefits for new employees of its Catholic Charities.
ncregister.com/daily-news/archdiocese_of_washington_forced_to_end_spousal_benefits/

The Affordable Care Act is even more tricky, since the issue of religious freedom is involved. For example, Hobby Lobby is clearly not a religious organization. Yet a convincing case can be made that the religious freedoms of the company’s owners extend to the business, since it has a record of being guided by the faith of the owners.

Anti-discrimination laws have been troublesome for religious persons who are opposed to same-sex marriage. However, there is no record that such laws will restrict speech. The very broad protections afforded freedom of expression in the US protects both religious and non-religious speech.


#17

I would like some examples of how homosexuals are discriminated against today, examples which need to be remedied by more “civil rights” laws.
All I know is that this mad march to eviscerate our institutions never ends. They are in our faces 24/7, and I’m disgusted by the lack of push-back. Gov. Corbett of Pa. caved before the ink was dry on the lawless opinion of John E. Jones III. :ouch:


#18

No, certain classes of people deserve reparations to get even with everyone who disagrees with them. :newidea:


#19

Here is a recent news story:

Couple says they were asked not to come back to East Texas restaurant because they are gay
“We don’t serve fags here.”

That’s what a Pittsburg couple said they were told while leaving a local restaurant. The men went to eat at Big Earl’s Restaurant in Pittsburg for breakfast Tuesday morning. They said they enjoyed their food, paid for their meals, but it’s what the waitress said on their way out that ruined the whole experience.

They had eaten, paid, and had no idea they had done anything wrong.

“It was just so nonchalantly, almost like she was reading a piece of paper,” he said.

Well, she was. That phrase is posted on a piece of paper on the front door of the restaurant.

The owner told us that sign had been here since the restaurant opened three years ago. He also said they have the right to refuse service to that couple in the future because they didn’t follow that policy.
kltv.com/story/25624630/couple-says-they-were-asked-not-to-come-back-to-east-texas-restaurant-because-they-are-gay


#20

Actually according to what I read it wasn’t that they were gay but that they seemed to be engaging in inappropriate behavior. I doubt the restaurant would want anyone engaging in the behavior they seemed to be doing. How could anyone identify a homosexual unless they were engaging in homosexual behavior? Supposedly we still have a wide range of freedom to discriminate against certain behaviors. So this is a non-story unless the outrage is that homosexuals can’t engage in inappropriate behavior. That is certainly where we are headed but we might not be there yet.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.