Gov. Jindal got it right when he says that if the freedom is not for all then it's not freedom at all. However, his parents and I share the same cultural and ethnic heritage. Can he guarantee me and his parents that if we came to Louisiana a restaurant will not refuse to serve us because we are Hindus --- that is religious freedom. Right? By the the governor converted to Catholicism while his parents remained Hindu.
97
I find it interesting and phony the fact that in his Op-ed, Jindal, states that:"a pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us." Yet, he is doing exactly the opposite of what he is preaching by creating another of those "freedom of religious" bills that target certain people.
Also, the way he describes those who opposed his beliefs (media elite, radical left, left-wing activists, etc) doesn't show any toleration from this part.
Also, the way he describes those who opposed his beliefs (media elite, radical left, left-wing activists, etc) doesn't show any toleration from this part.
101
I DO believe in "religious liberty"! That is why I feel everyone should be at "liberty" to be a part of society, including being able to marry as they please. The society envisioned by our founders was one of respect for all and division of church and state. Your "liberty" should not allow you to speak against me or choose not to do business with me!
I am straight and married, but I am sure someone could find something objectionable-- and call it "religious liberty"! Just scratched New Orleans off the vacation wish-list.
My Scots-Irish ancestors came here to get away from the horrors of church-as-state, and this many centuries later the lesson is seared into my "conscience." Let's not go there!
I am straight and married, but I am sure someone could find something objectionable-- and call it "religious liberty"! Just scratched New Orleans off the vacation wish-list.
My Scots-Irish ancestors came here to get away from the horrors of church-as-state, and this many centuries later the lesson is seared into my "conscience." Let's not go there!
106
Marriage Equality has NOTHING to do with forcing anyone to do anything any differently than yesterday. If a flower shop decides not to sell me flowers because they think I'm gay, or because they disagree with the occasion for which I"m buying flowers, that does not fly with Liberty and Justice for all. I cannot think of a single business run by anyone in the GLBT community that would refuse service to someone because of what they perceive their religious beliefs to be. This is absolute farce.
74
what s notable here is that Mr. Jindal concedes that polls show American opinion on same sex marriage is changing. So much of what Republicans espouse is just the opposite, i.e. out right denial of the facts. Take Climate Change or why there is such unequal income distribution.
44
Ironic that Bobby Jindal is claiming the authority of people fleeing religious authorities dictating who had rights and who did not as the justification for the conservatives asserting the right to have government dictate who has rights under US law based on the religious authority of conservative elites like Bobby Jindal.
Its especially ironic that an Indian ancestry conservative is arguing for a return to the era when Indians did not have a right to their land - that there was confusion over the American people who were not Indians but were thought to be Indians, and thus by being identified as Indians, they had not rights as Americans to America which was given by god to white men from Europe.
Further, "god gave" white men rights, but not women, or non-whites, who had to fight to get all men rights from white men, and then fight more to get rights for women from men.
So, for Bobby Jindal to invoke religion is to speak as someone without any "god given" right, but as someone who got his rights from liberals who rejected god as the authority on rights and liberty.
Its especially ironic that an Indian ancestry conservative is arguing for a return to the era when Indians did not have a right to their land - that there was confusion over the American people who were not Indians but were thought to be Indians, and thus by being identified as Indians, they had not rights as Americans to America which was given by god to white men from Europe.
Further, "god gave" white men rights, but not women, or non-whites, who had to fight to get all men rights from white men, and then fight more to get rights for women from men.
So, for Bobby Jindal to invoke religion is to speak as someone without any "god given" right, but as someone who got his rights from liberals who rejected god as the authority on rights and liberty.
28
Why single out gay marriage, among the many "sins" forbidden by the bible? Why have good Christians not have "crisis" of faith dealing with murderers, child molesters, divorcees, liars, thieves or those who act uncharitable to the poor and sick?
"Religious liberty" conjured up an image of people being left alone to practice their spiritual faith, not hurting anybody. The religious freedom that Jindal and his like want is the freedom to impose their views on others. When they are stopped from doing this, when the others say "no more," they feel "persecuted."
The word "freedom" is so easily thrown around, like freedom of speech, freedom to own guns, we forget that for one person to be absolutely free, he/she will inevitably infringe upon another person's free space. We may have free speech, but it is ethically wrong to spread lies about others or to incite violence and hatred with our speech. We are free to practice our own faith to the extent that we do not hurt others or impose our views on others. The Christians seek to make all other live by their Christian codes; they want to own "marriage." Some how they feel entitled to the whole universe.
Jindal does have a point when he points out that Republicans have 31 governors and control majority of the state legislative body. Why? Do majority of Americans share his view? If not, why have the Republicans controlled the majority the state executive and legislative branch, and have indeed controlled the US Congress and Senate?
"Religious liberty" conjured up an image of people being left alone to practice their spiritual faith, not hurting anybody. The religious freedom that Jindal and his like want is the freedom to impose their views on others. When they are stopped from doing this, when the others say "no more," they feel "persecuted."
The word "freedom" is so easily thrown around, like freedom of speech, freedom to own guns, we forget that for one person to be absolutely free, he/she will inevitably infringe upon another person's free space. We may have free speech, but it is ethically wrong to spread lies about others or to incite violence and hatred with our speech. We are free to practice our own faith to the extent that we do not hurt others or impose our views on others. The Christians seek to make all other live by their Christian codes; they want to own "marriage." Some how they feel entitled to the whole universe.
Jindal does have a point when he points out that Republicans have 31 governors and control majority of the state legislative body. Why? Do majority of Americans share his view? If not, why have the Republicans controlled the majority the state executive and legislative branch, and have indeed controlled the US Congress and Senate?
36
With this op-ed, Bobby Jindal has successfully disproved Darwin's Theory of Evolution, because one would suppose that an intelligent person would have evolved past this level of bigotry. Curiously, his argument -- that same-sex marriage violates his religion -- is the same one that was used up until just a half-century ago to prevent interracial marriage. You'd think a governor with Jindal's complexion would be able to see the irony in all of this.
In any event, I'm confident Jindal's views on this will evolve quickly if the NBA Hornets and the NFL Saints say they're considering moving their franchises out of Louisiana, or if the NCAA says it will remove sites in Louisiana -- including the Superdome -- from its list of possible tournament venues, because the governor's proposed law will provide a hostile environment for athletes.
Or maybe he'll just have to wait for one or all of his three young children to grow up, look him in the eye, shake their heads and say, "Dad, what on earth were you thinking?"
In any event, I'm confident Jindal's views on this will evolve quickly if the NBA Hornets and the NFL Saints say they're considering moving their franchises out of Louisiana, or if the NCAA says it will remove sites in Louisiana -- including the Superdome -- from its list of possible tournament venues, because the governor's proposed law will provide a hostile environment for athletes.
Or maybe he'll just have to wait for one or all of his three young children to grow up, look him in the eye, shake their heads and say, "Dad, what on earth were you thinking?"
60
Governor Jindal,
I would like to encourage you and your allies to examine the foundations of your argument. I agree that there is substantial textual support in the Bible for the statement that homosexuality is a sin (as well as myriad other "lifestyle" "choices", such as alcoholism or morbid obesity), but there is no statement in the Bible that serving sinners is a sin. In fact, precisely the opposite is true. Jesus was one of the first great caterers, turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana and feeding the 5,000. We are not told that Jesus first determined that the betrothed were without sin, or that those being fed during the Beatitudes were living godly lives. Jesus shows us again and again to pursue the sinner, to love them, and serve them.
There is also no biblical foundation for opposing a legal definition established by the state. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" stands for the proposition that we live in a world where the trivial is controlled by the laws of man. Marriage benefits are a creature of state and federal tax law. Jesus didn't say "give to Caesar, unless he's asking you to indirectly contribute gold to sinners."
I believe that the Christian faith contains beautiful, powerful truths that can guide people to a fulfilling life. This type of rhetoric has no connection to those truths, and seems to miss the point of Jesus' words and deeds. I would ask that you reflect on your position once again in the light of Jesus' loving message of service.
I would like to encourage you and your allies to examine the foundations of your argument. I agree that there is substantial textual support in the Bible for the statement that homosexuality is a sin (as well as myriad other "lifestyle" "choices", such as alcoholism or morbid obesity), but there is no statement in the Bible that serving sinners is a sin. In fact, precisely the opposite is true. Jesus was one of the first great caterers, turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana and feeding the 5,000. We are not told that Jesus first determined that the betrothed were without sin, or that those being fed during the Beatitudes were living godly lives. Jesus shows us again and again to pursue the sinner, to love them, and serve them.
There is also no biblical foundation for opposing a legal definition established by the state. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" stands for the proposition that we live in a world where the trivial is controlled by the laws of man. Marriage benefits are a creature of state and federal tax law. Jesus didn't say "give to Caesar, unless he's asking you to indirectly contribute gold to sinners."
I believe that the Christian faith contains beautiful, powerful truths that can guide people to a fulfilling life. This type of rhetoric has no connection to those truths, and seems to miss the point of Jesus' words and deeds. I would ask that you reflect on your position once again in the light of Jesus' loving message of service.
71
Here's my deal. You answer a few questions that clear up a few issues I've got and I'm good to go to support your position.
Do you believe in the laws of physics? The absolute speed of light being the most important. No cheating, they is what they is.
Okay, great start.
Do you understand we have mapped the whole solar system, out past Pluto?
Do you understand that the closest star is 5 light years away. A light year is the distance light (the fastest speed anything can travel) can go in a year.
And it ain't got no planets.
Do you understand there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on all the beaches in the world.
Okay, great, let's keep moving.
Show me, on a map, where heaven is. Then explain how we get there.
Answer those two questions and I'll overlook little problems like seven days to create the world, the omission of evolution, that Noah was 800 years old and slavery is okay. And I won't call anyone selling religion an idiot, nor anyone buying it misguided.
But if you can't- I be tired of pretending you aren't as the world gets more screwed up every day.
Do you believe in the laws of physics? The absolute speed of light being the most important. No cheating, they is what they is.
Okay, great start.
Do you understand we have mapped the whole solar system, out past Pluto?
Do you understand that the closest star is 5 light years away. A light year is the distance light (the fastest speed anything can travel) can go in a year.
And it ain't got no planets.
Do you understand there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on all the beaches in the world.
Okay, great, let's keep moving.
Show me, on a map, where heaven is. Then explain how we get there.
Answer those two questions and I'll overlook little problems like seven days to create the world, the omission of evolution, that Noah was 800 years old and slavery is okay. And I won't call anyone selling religion an idiot, nor anyone buying it misguided.
But if you can't- I be tired of pretending you aren't as the world gets more screwed up every day.
27
So he's made his personal decision and is going to stick to it. Bravo.
Now he should be able to let others do the same.
Now he should be able to let others do the same.
8
I guess the lesson that "consumers make their own choices" has yet to come home to roost with you, Governor. Gay men, lesbian women, bisexuals, transgenders, their friends, families and supporters world wide are happy to make our purchases in other states, take our vacations at other resorts, and give Louisiana State the wide berth that you so desire. If you think it's "business as usual" when you've gone out of your way to promote an increase in bigotry, intolerance and hatred in my homeland, guess again. The gay buck stops here. Kiss it goodbye.
32
Liberals would be "shrieking" if the shoe were on the other foot and
Jewish Bakers were expected to bake for Neo-Nazi's or African American
Bakers for the KKK. "Can you please make the K's as delicate as possible ? "
There is nothing in the Constitution that demands that I must seek my
product to anyone who walks through the door, likewise there is nothing
in the Constitution that demand that you buy anything that I am selling.
It is called Freedom of Choice.
If I don't want to bake a cake for your wedding, go to another Baker.
Whatever happened to respecting someone's Conscience ?
Do you expect Muslim Bakers to work on Friday, Jewish Bakers to
work on Saturday or Christian Bakers to work on Sunday ?
Is it DISCRIMINATION if a Caterer won't cater your wedding on
their Holy Day of the Week ?
If everyone would just take it easy, the situation will probably work itself
out in time. Stop trying to force others to have the same MORALITY as you.
Jewish Bakers were expected to bake for Neo-Nazi's or African American
Bakers for the KKK. "Can you please make the K's as delicate as possible ? "
There is nothing in the Constitution that demands that I must seek my
product to anyone who walks through the door, likewise there is nothing
in the Constitution that demand that you buy anything that I am selling.
It is called Freedom of Choice.
If I don't want to bake a cake for your wedding, go to another Baker.
Whatever happened to respecting someone's Conscience ?
Do you expect Muslim Bakers to work on Friday, Jewish Bakers to
work on Saturday or Christian Bakers to work on Sunday ?
Is it DISCRIMINATION if a Caterer won't cater your wedding on
their Holy Day of the Week ?
If everyone would just take it easy, the situation will probably work itself
out in time. Stop trying to force others to have the same MORALITY as you.
8
It is so sad that people like Governor Jindal can't give to others what they themselves hold dear. Family, friends, love, devotion. Jindal and his ilk are lesser human beings for it and probably should find work elsewhere than representing communities, states or people.
33
My question is where does it stop? Is it just bakers and photographers? What about the airline that flies you to your wedding location? The hotel at which you stay? How about the places you register? Could not all of them and more claim this exemption? I was married once and don't feel like bakers, musicians and photographers were any more a "part of" the ceremony than my friends from high school whom I didn't invite.
49
I'm holding firm against voting for Bobby Jindal. Though if he were nominated to run as the Republican candidate in the general election it could only help the Dems.
18
Okay, I think I finally have a handle on Jindal's and his pals' religiosity.
It goes something like this:
"God, and the values He teaches us, are the most important things in our lives and we will legislate those values UNLESS that legislation undermines our tourism revenue...Amen."
It goes something like this:
"God, and the values He teaches us, are the most important things in our lives and we will legislate those values UNLESS that legislation undermines our tourism revenue...Amen."
23
"Why shouldn’t an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony that violates a sincerely held religious belief?"
For the same reason they can't do so regarding mixed race marriages, or refuse to serve handicapped people. Doy.
However, why would a business ever need to go to court over this? This is a non-issue that is being played up by religious dum-dums who need to stir up controversy where it doesn't exist.
For the same reason they can't do so regarding mixed race marriages, or refuse to serve handicapped people. Doy.
However, why would a business ever need to go to court over this? This is a non-issue that is being played up by religious dum-dums who need to stir up controversy where it doesn't exist.
35
"If it’s not freedom for all, it’s not freedom at all." Way to contradict yourself in the whole marriage thing Bobby.
42
Between this odious screed and Steve King's "Restrain the Judges" bill, I haven't seen this much gay panic since "Three's Company" went off the air.
34
Let me summarize: "Blah blah blah. Radical liberals. Blah blah blah. Media elite. Blah blah blah. I love Jesus. Blah blah blah."
Oh, and by the way Gov. Jindal. Corporate America (you know, the "people" you love when they are giving you campaign contributions) have already decided. It supports gay marriage.
While you're holding firm, the rest of the nation is moving on. See you later.
Oh, and by the way Gov. Jindal. Corporate America (you know, the "people" you love when they are giving you campaign contributions) have already decided. It supports gay marriage.
While you're holding firm, the rest of the nation is moving on. See you later.
60
I do not understand who decided there is a 'threat to Christianity'? Over 80% of American Citizens declare themselves as 'Christian'. How can someone who is clearly in the majority camp feel even the least bit threatened? I say let the rest of us who fall in the less than 15%, non-Christian minority, define what is and isn't a 'threat'. Get thee on the clue-bus O Christian Soldiers and drive as close as you can to the 21st century! It's a pretty cool place!
24
With the ascensions of gay and ambigous gender rights, what is clearly being trampled is freedom from a mandate to participate in social events. The two directions are clearly at an impasse. But, more than that conflict is that the right to freedoms of expression are now being abridged where the gay sex issues arise. Amazingly, it is legal to advocate on billboards hatred of Israel but not ok to refuse to come set up a wedding cake at a gay wedding and not ok to refuse to come take pictures of such an event.
Clearly, freedom of expression guarantees the right of gays to join together in what they call marriage and, clearly, they have won a political right to the same tax advantages of man-woman marriage. It is time to consider that fait accompli. That battle is done. Only the mop up remains. Similarly, the battles about abortion have been won by those in favor of abortion almost at will, almost at any time in pregnancy. Done deal.
A casualty is the right to choose when not to join one's business to a social event. It is one thing to sell a cake to anyone willing to pay. It is quite another to insist that participation in a social event can be forced by law. That is an enormously egregious affront to human rights. What would prevent a future government from demanding that any group of folks participate in other social events, because the gov't so dictates?
Secular transactions should be gender-preference irrelevant. Social event work should not be compellable.
Clearly, freedom of expression guarantees the right of gays to join together in what they call marriage and, clearly, they have won a political right to the same tax advantages of man-woman marriage. It is time to consider that fait accompli. That battle is done. Only the mop up remains. Similarly, the battles about abortion have been won by those in favor of abortion almost at will, almost at any time in pregnancy. Done deal.
A casualty is the right to choose when not to join one's business to a social event. It is one thing to sell a cake to anyone willing to pay. It is quite another to insist that participation in a social event can be forced by law. That is an enormously egregious affront to human rights. What would prevent a future government from demanding that any group of folks participate in other social events, because the gov't so dictates?
Secular transactions should be gender-preference irrelevant. Social event work should not be compellable.
2
Justices Ginsberg, Kagen, Sotomayor, Breyer, Kennedy and possibly the Chief (Roberts) as well, will find in favor of marriage for all. Then this nonsense will be over. Thomas, Scalia and Alito can just cry in the corner.
14
"Proposed law retains present law and creates the Marriage and Conscience Act."
I am not an attorney but can someone explain whether Gov. Jondal is supporting an Act that is already covered by existing LA law? (based on the Abstract below provided through his link) Does this mean he believes LA needs separate Conscious Acts for food preparation, hospitality, baptism, circumcision, funerals, etc.?
https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=937123
Abstract: (provided on p. 5 at end of legislative document)
Provides relative to the right of conscience and religious freedom regarding
beliefs about marriage.
Present law protects the free exercise of religion and includes the ability to act or refuse to act in a manner substantially motivated by a sincerely-held religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or a central part or central requirement of the person's religious belief.
Present law defines marriage in La. Const. Article XII, §15.
Proposed law retains present law and creates the Marriage and Conscience Act.
Prohibits the state from taking any adverse action against a person on the basis that such person actedin accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction about marriage.
(cont'd in link)
I am not an attorney but can someone explain whether Gov. Jondal is supporting an Act that is already covered by existing LA law? (based on the Abstract below provided through his link) Does this mean he believes LA needs separate Conscious Acts for food preparation, hospitality, baptism, circumcision, funerals, etc.?
https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=937123
Abstract: (provided on p. 5 at end of legislative document)
Provides relative to the right of conscience and religious freedom regarding
beliefs about marriage.
Present law protects the free exercise of religion and includes the ability to act or refuse to act in a manner substantially motivated by a sincerely-held religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or a central part or central requirement of the person's religious belief.
Present law defines marriage in La. Const. Article XII, §15.
Proposed law retains present law and creates the Marriage and Conscience Act.
Prohibits the state from taking any adverse action against a person on the basis that such person actedin accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction about marriage.
(cont'd in link)
This is why Bobby Jindal will never become President of the United States, he knows neither how to lead nor govern.
22
Bobby Jindal, thanks for sharing your discriminatory views. Please go back to Louisiana, since they elected you, and don't bother the rest of the country anymore.
23
This entire piece could have been written in the 1950s, in opposition to businesses having to serve black people and white people equally.
It is just as wrong now as it would have been then. I am ashamed that any of my fellow Americans feel the way as this horrible bigoted politician.
It is just as wrong now as it would have been then. I am ashamed that any of my fellow Americans feel the way as this horrible bigoted politician.
31
Reveling in ignorance is nothing to be admired. What the Fundamentalist Right seeks is not religious liberty but religious privilege. It's time for Christians to distance themselves and speak out about these people like they want Muslims to speak out against radical Islam. If your religion wants to have the right to be bigoted, it shouldn't exist.
I'm also sick and tired of the term radical left being thrown out whenever there is an attempt to treat all Americans equally. If that is radical and only exists on the left (which I don't believe is true) then that putrid remains of a once proud Republican party should call it a day. It's a shame that exalting ignorance and looking down on the majority of America is all they have left.
I don't know how these words even come out of any thinking human being
"However, given the changing positions of politicians, judges and the public in favor of same-sex marriage, along with the potential for discrimination against Christian individuals and businesses that comes with these shifts..." So he wants to legislate that "Christian" businesses (whatever the hell that means) should be able to discriminate because customers may choose not to do business with them. It certainly explains the only the people at the top matter approach that the GOP now has. Again, Sad for someone who once worked on Republican campaigns. While Bobby is a leader in the party never again.
I'm also sick and tired of the term radical left being thrown out whenever there is an attempt to treat all Americans equally. If that is radical and only exists on the left (which I don't believe is true) then that putrid remains of a once proud Republican party should call it a day. It's a shame that exalting ignorance and looking down on the majority of America is all they have left.
I don't know how these words even come out of any thinking human being
"However, given the changing positions of politicians, judges and the public in favor of same-sex marriage, along with the potential for discrimination against Christian individuals and businesses that comes with these shifts..." So he wants to legislate that "Christian" businesses (whatever the hell that means) should be able to discriminate because customers may choose not to do business with them. It certainly explains the only the people at the top matter approach that the GOP now has. Again, Sad for someone who once worked on Republican campaigns. While Bobby is a leader in the party never again.
17
Should Muslim photographers be "forced" to create a photo layout of a Quran burning party?
Should black bakers be "forced" to bake cakes for a KuKlux Klan rally?
Should vegetarian photographers be "forced" to do a photo shoot of a wild safari hunting group?
Should environmentalist caterers be "forced" to cater for an anti global warming convention?
A better question is why would a gay couple even want to have someone photograph or cater an intimate occasion like a wedding knowing that they considered their union immoral or offensive. Its not like there are not many other photographers and caterers who would be glad to have their business without violating their consciences.
The gay community is not seeking civil rights under the constitution, they are seeking to force society in general and religious people in particular to "approve", and "participate" in behavior they consider to be a perversion of natural and religious law. It is one thing to "persuade" and it is another to "coerce". The latter is repugnant regardless of whether it comes from the religious or the non religious.
Should black bakers be "forced" to bake cakes for a KuKlux Klan rally?
Should vegetarian photographers be "forced" to do a photo shoot of a wild safari hunting group?
Should environmentalist caterers be "forced" to cater for an anti global warming convention?
A better question is why would a gay couple even want to have someone photograph or cater an intimate occasion like a wedding knowing that they considered their union immoral or offensive. Its not like there are not many other photographers and caterers who would be glad to have their business without violating their consciences.
The gay community is not seeking civil rights under the constitution, they are seeking to force society in general and religious people in particular to "approve", and "participate" in behavior they consider to be a perversion of natural and religious law. It is one thing to "persuade" and it is another to "coerce". The latter is repugnant regardless of whether it comes from the religious or the non religious.
6
So, Mr. Jindal. If a religious person opposes marriages between people of different races, do you support their "right" as well? Prior to the SCOTUS ruling in Loving v. Virginia, such marriages were illegal in many places and much of the opposition was "based" on the Bible.
18
Gov. Jindal,
When I graduated from high school, you would never have written such an op-ed. Why? Because there was no way you could be governor. Indeed, you probably could not have even voted. Why? Because you would have been viewed as "colored", as in "colored" water fountains, "colored' seating on buses and streetcars, etc. You also would have had a non-Christian aura about you, conversion or not.
Discrimination was the law and Christian/Biblical justification was a major basis of the law. The parents of most of your current supporters actively, and sometimes violently, supported the law. Many of your current supporters would probably support a return to the law.
But, fortunately for you and your political ambitions, times and laws have changed. I suggest you may want to catch up to those changes...
When I graduated from high school, you would never have written such an op-ed. Why? Because there was no way you could be governor. Indeed, you probably could not have even voted. Why? Because you would have been viewed as "colored", as in "colored" water fountains, "colored' seating on buses and streetcars, etc. You also would have had a non-Christian aura about you, conversion or not.
Discrimination was the law and Christian/Biblical justification was a major basis of the law. The parents of most of your current supporters actively, and sometimes violently, supported the law. Many of your current supporters would probably support a return to the law.
But, fortunately for you and your political ambitions, times and laws have changed. I suggest you may want to catch up to those changes...
60
Support for "religious freedom" is simply pandering to bigots. Bigots who use religion as an excuse for their intolerance. (Where does Jesus rail against homosexuals? There is a passage where he insists that people continue the old rules - but where does he spell out which rules?)
Religion is man-made. At it's most benign it comforts the distraught. At it's most disingenuous it attempts to explain the unexplainable. But at it's worst it attempts to define and control moral behavior.
Gov. Jindal wants us to think that opposing "religious freedom" is a form of intolerance. He couldn't be more wrong. Opposing "religious freedom" is simply intolerance of intolerance.
Religion is man-made. At it's most benign it comforts the distraught. At it's most disingenuous it attempts to explain the unexplainable. But at it's worst it attempts to define and control moral behavior.
Gov. Jindal wants us to think that opposing "religious freedom" is a form of intolerance. He couldn't be more wrong. Opposing "religious freedom" is simply intolerance of intolerance.
19
The first amendment guarantees freedom FROM religion as well as freedom OF religion.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
12
Gov. Jindal continues to be his opportunistic self. He changed his first name, converted to Catholicism and now when he see an opportunity to wedge himself against the pro-business wing of the GOP, he takes it. Come on, Piyush. Jump into the race already and let the circus begin.
48
Poor Louisiana.
61
This article is propaganda at it's worst, Bobby.
"Radical left," "radical liberals," "media elite," "liberal opponents"...your rhetoric perpetuates the political and ideological divisiveness that has lowered America's credit rating and world standing.
When the ideology of a few so negatively impacts the many, then it is the holders of that ideology that are radical.
Look in the mirror, Governor, before labeling others in such a way. That is, if you're capable of even that simple act of self-reflection.
"Radical left," "radical liberals," "media elite," "liberal opponents"...your rhetoric perpetuates the political and ideological divisiveness that has lowered America's credit rating and world standing.
When the ideology of a few so negatively impacts the many, then it is the holders of that ideology that are radical.
Look in the mirror, Governor, before labeling others in such a way. That is, if you're capable of even that simple act of self-reflection.
37
So if I had a business in Louisiana, and I decide that Republican policies violate my religious beliefs, could I refuse to serve Republicans?
29
Can't wait for this guy to leave office. He leaves his legacy of having destroyed education funding, and it won't be until decades from now that Louisiana will be able to pick up the pieces to compete nationally. Shame shame governor. Crying about the garden as the house burns down.
20
Jindal, like the rest of the religious right, cannot be reasoned with. There is plenty of religious freedom in the US - indeed, the religious have far too many rights: paid holidays, time off for other religious reasons, tax exempt organizations, and on and on. A president cannot win unless he professes to be a Christian. Yet the Christian Right, which screams "freedom" at every turn does not want a dialogue - it is scared to death of democracy and seeks to overturn it. The Christian Right only wants freedom for itself. All of those who have been screaming that gays want "special rights" are now the ones demanding special rights. So called social conservatives do not deserve to have their precious "values" enshrined into law at the expense of everyone else. If you open a business to the public you have to serve the public. Anyway, isn't Jindal the one who said that Republicans have to stop being the "stupid party?"
23
Governor, I have a proposition: I will choose not to be gay for a couple of hours if you choose not to have a religious conviction that makes it morally impossible for you to bake me a cake.
And no worries, you will not be asked to particiapte in my wedding.
And no worries, you will not be asked to particiapte in my wedding.
19
This is very confusing even after reading it several times. He says the bill is not changing anything. So why write it? A marriage between a man and a woman has always been accepted. The only thing that changed since is that people of the same sex want the same privileges and rights that a marriage license bestows on one between a man and woman. Is Jindal afraid that a marriage of two citizens ofrom the same sex is going to spread around cooties or something?
9
Dear Governor Jindal,
Could you please explain why your arguments don't apply with "gay marriage" replaced by "interracial marriage"?
Could you please explain why your arguments don't apply with "gay marriage" replaced by "interracial marriage"?
18
Wow! And this man was once thought to be the future of the GOP!!
I can't decide if I am a radical liberal, a left-wing ideologue, a left-wing activist bully or just a liberal opponent of those who refuse to "tolerate those who disagree with us". All I thought I wanted was for my fellow citizens to be free from a tradition of bigotry, whether couched in terms of religious freedom or just personal beliefs. Or wait - are those actually different?
And little did I know that if I didn't stand shoulder to shoulder with bigots that I must find profits to be vulgar and be inclined to tax and regulate myself (as a businessman) out of business.
Well, to all of those people who think that religiosity can justify otherwise unacceptable personal behavior, I suggest that you look at the religious traditions of the dominant faith in my home state of Utah. In the two-century time frame Bobby Jindal mentions, marriage was definitely not one man and one woman and until much more recently Blacks were not regarded as the religious equals of other racial groups. It's nice that those religious beliefs were abolished. Maybe religion-based bigotry against the LGBT community will be abolished as well, so long as people like Bobby Jindal don't succeed in providing it the protection of law.
I can't decide if I am a radical liberal, a left-wing ideologue, a left-wing activist bully or just a liberal opponent of those who refuse to "tolerate those who disagree with us". All I thought I wanted was for my fellow citizens to be free from a tradition of bigotry, whether couched in terms of religious freedom or just personal beliefs. Or wait - are those actually different?
And little did I know that if I didn't stand shoulder to shoulder with bigots that I must find profits to be vulgar and be inclined to tax and regulate myself (as a businessman) out of business.
Well, to all of those people who think that religiosity can justify otherwise unacceptable personal behavior, I suggest that you look at the religious traditions of the dominant faith in my home state of Utah. In the two-century time frame Bobby Jindal mentions, marriage was definitely not one man and one woman and until much more recently Blacks were not regarded as the religious equals of other racial groups. It's nice that those religious beliefs were abolished. Maybe religion-based bigotry against the LGBT community will be abolished as well, so long as people like Bobby Jindal don't succeed in providing it the protection of law.
23
The Democrats' War On Faith continues.
How long until Hillary finally admits she has "evolved" and no longer supports the right of individuals to abstain from any involvement in homosexual weddings?
How long until Hillary finally admits she has "evolved" and no longer supports the right of individuals to abstain from any involvement in homosexual weddings?
3
I suppose the founding fathers were primarily concerned with preventing the establishment of a state religion, but it's surprising that their own experiences (think witch burning) didn't prompt them to fear "free exercise" of religion running roughshod over minorities and people who were just generally disliked. Football is a religion in Jindal's neighboring state, once a province of Mexico where the religion rounded up losers and cut their hearts out on festive days, something the crowd at the barber shop in a perpetually losing town might appreciate happening to a quarterback. Too extreme an example? How about a religion where the divinity tests a long barren elderly couple by demanding the sacrifice of the child who has finally brightened their home? Well, how about the Lutheran congregation in Omaha in 1966 that got rid of a pastor who sought communion with black Lutherans (and Presbyterians) from the wrong side of town? There's also the bishop who protects a priest with a taste for altar boys. Religions can get quirky, and their "free exercise" can be limited as much as limiting the guy who wants to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre. A religion that determines to marginalize, denigrate, punish and stimulate hatred for people who simply are different in the privacy of their own world defeats the purpose of "free exercise" -- and there are some major christian groups who affirm this by performing same sex weddings. And I doubt if pizza is served, anyway.
8
Why does Jindal use firmly held religious beliefs only as defense of those who oppose only gay marriage? Why not use religious beliefs as a free pass for those who would stone blasphemers (Leviticus 24:16) or those who would kill mediums and spiritists (Leviticus 20:27), adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), or people who curse their parents (Leviticus 20:9)? Are these killings okay, as long as a person truly believes they are consistent with religious beliefs? I don't think so, but I'd like to read Jindal's defense of "religious liberty" if these commandments are part of the debate.
17
The separation of church and state protects religion. But the Republicans want to establish a type of belief system that hates the GLBT community, wants corporations to get bigger, stronger, richrr and more influential, more income inequality, environmental degredation, etc.! Not what I want.
8
Religious freedom does not entitle you to deny other people their rights. We do not accept that terrorists can murder people when they do so in the name of religion, so why should we make laws to protect people's right to discriminate against other people in the name of religion.
21
"A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us."
Mr. Jindall, how do you square this statement with the creation and maintenance of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") established in 1996, at the behest of conservatives, and maintained through to 2013 when it was struck down by SCOTUS?
Mr. Jindall, how do you square this statement with the creation and maintenance of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") established in 1996, at the behest of conservatives, and maintained through to 2013 when it was struck down by SCOTUS?
13
I will never understand how the denial of rights to gay protects the right of others.
Aren't gay (and atheist) Americans still, when all is said and done, Americans?
Aren't gay (and atheist) Americans still, when all is said and done, Americans?
23
"The left-wing ideologues who oppose religious freedom are the same ones who seek to tax and regulate businesses out of existence. The same people who think that profit making is vulgar believe that religiosity is folly. The fight against this misguided, government-dictating ideology is one fight, not two. Conservative leaders cannot sit idly by and allow large corporations to rip our coalition in half." So....The Govt is taxing and regulating business out of existence so that it can protect gay rights, but those same businesses are trying to tear Bobby's coalition apart? No Comprende !!
8
Louisiana residents are coming around to realize his true agenda. He's not really running for President. He's positioning himself for a well paying job with a far right wing think tank or lobby after his term as governor expires next year. Hobby Lobby Bobby doesn't want to work anymore. (Well, he doesn't work as governor. He's out of the state more than he's home) A comfy speech circuit to bobble-heads is all he really wants.
22
So, as I read Mr. Jindal's heartfelt position, he also supports the right of ISIS to behead the infidels. What is wrong with this picture??
21
Bobby Jindal: I have one per cent support.
8
"I'm mad because businesses oppose the religious freedom legislation that is supposed to support businesses, whine whine whine." Jindal, you're bad for my state and I can't wait to vote you out of office.
24
Mr Jindal, you obfuscate the term "religious freedom" with incredibly insular views about what it means to practice religion. Practising one's given religion is a not a license to discriminate. Our Constitution does not intimate that one can practise religion at the detriment of others. Instead it explicitly states that there should be a separation of church and state, and that people should be free to exercise their religion. Baking a cake for a gay couple does not impinge on one's ability to freely practise Christianity.
Anyway, your baseline assumption is that people CHOOSE to be gay. It is no more a choice than you choosing to be straight. On this basis, discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation is parallel to discriminating against someone because they are brown, or they are in a wheelchair. These features are not optional.
Ultimately your views, however antiquated they are, are yours to hold. That is what makes this country so wonderful. But confusing religious freedom with the right to discriminate obviously and purposefully contorts Constitutional law.
Our beautiful country was not just built on religious freedom, but on tolerance; on diversity; on equality. The tenets of our society evolve - the spirit of the masses guide it so. We're moving towards an more enlightened age of treating each other with respect, across all genres. Feel free to stay firmly put, but the rest of us are trying to move forward.
Anyway, your baseline assumption is that people CHOOSE to be gay. It is no more a choice than you choosing to be straight. On this basis, discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation is parallel to discriminating against someone because they are brown, or they are in a wheelchair. These features are not optional.
Ultimately your views, however antiquated they are, are yours to hold. That is what makes this country so wonderful. But confusing religious freedom with the right to discriminate obviously and purposefully contorts Constitutional law.
Our beautiful country was not just built on religious freedom, but on tolerance; on diversity; on equality. The tenets of our society evolve - the spirit of the masses guide it so. We're moving towards an more enlightened age of treating each other with respect, across all genres. Feel free to stay firmly put, but the rest of us are trying to move forward.
15
I don't know if I'm right about this, but isn't it against his religion to deny others rights while using his religion as the basis? Doesn't sound very Christ-like to me.
10
Sigh.
Don't you get that _other people_ getting married isn't a violation of _your_ religious freedom? YOU marry whomever YOUR religious beliefs dictate, and let OTHER PEOPLE marry whomever THEIR religious beliefs dictate. See?
It's as if you think in the middle of the ceremony they're suddenly going to grab YOU and marry YOU instead. Must be that sneaky homosexual agenda ...
Don't you get that _other people_ getting married isn't a violation of _your_ religious freedom? YOU marry whomever YOUR religious beliefs dictate, and let OTHER PEOPLE marry whomever THEIR religious beliefs dictate. See?
It's as if you think in the middle of the ceremony they're suddenly going to grab YOU and marry YOU instead. Must be that sneaky homosexual agenda ...
21
Scapegoating and discrimination, the last refuges of the scoundrel. Gov. Jindal must be in political trouble.
13
Freedom to condemn.
Freedom to scapegoat.
Freedom discriminate against.
Freedom to openly & self righteously hate those who are not like us.
These are some of the sacred freedoms that Governor Jindal advocates. Gay marriage is just one battle ground of the larger war against those who do not fit the right wing evangelical model for righteousness.
Freedom to scapegoat.
Freedom discriminate against.
Freedom to openly & self righteously hate those who are not like us.
These are some of the sacred freedoms that Governor Jindal advocates. Gay marriage is just one battle ground of the larger war against those who do not fit the right wing evangelical model for righteousness.
25
The author is missing an obvious bottom line. Religious "liberty" does not trump equal rights. Christians in the past cited scripture in an attempt to promulgate racial subjugation of blacks and native Americans. Christians also cited scripture and cried about their religious liberty when denying interracial marriage rights. Thankfully our laws and collective social conscience have moved beyond such archaic and obviously unfair attitudes. If I am a Jew I have no right to legislate that you as a Christian have to worship on Saturday. If I am a Hindu it would be patently unjust to impose my Good Book's decree that you can not consume cow meat.... The narrow mindedness of thinking that my religious beliefs must be forced upon another
is an archaic and patently unjust attitude.
The author is not describing religious "liberty" but religious tyranny.
is an archaic and patently unjust attitude.
The author is not describing religious "liberty" but religious tyranny.
22
So is a waiter in a restaurant a participant in your dinner?
25
"I won't let companies block Louisiana from protecting religious liberty. Bobby Jindal." - NYT.
"the people that I know, gay or straight or liberal or conservative, are very just understanding and supportive of an individual’s right to live their life as they see fit." - Courtney Hoffman - 2015
"An industry with a long history of supporting gay rights is starting to speak out against a new Indiana law that gives legal cover to people who refuse to do business with same-sex couples." - Quentin Harvey - NYT, regarding Marc Benioff, the chief executive of Salesforce.com, announced he would cancel all company events in Indiana.
Mr. Benioff would be better off to support the 'liberal' concept, like Courtney Hoffman, that the individual has the right (without interference by citizen or state) to freely contract with who and for what they feel is important to their own well being !?
"the people that I know, gay or straight or liberal or conservative, are very just understanding and supportive of an individual’s right to live their life as they see fit." - Courtney Hoffman - 2015
"An industry with a long history of supporting gay rights is starting to speak out against a new Indiana law that gives legal cover to people who refuse to do business with same-sex couples." - Quentin Harvey - NYT, regarding Marc Benioff, the chief executive of Salesforce.com, announced he would cancel all company events in Indiana.
Mr. Benioff would be better off to support the 'liberal' concept, like Courtney Hoffman, that the individual has the right (without interference by citizen or state) to freely contract with who and for what they feel is important to their own well being !?
2
This article and thoughts are sub-standard. Jindal only gets to publish this piece on nytimes due to his relevance as governor. This governor is only trying to masquerade good, old prejudice to go on discriminating against gay people. Who´s forcing any rabbi to marry gay people by the way? no one!
20
People are people. As long as one does no harm (this in the broadest sense, and of course the point that will generate the biggest debate about what constitutes harm) to another, living within the laws of the land, how one lives a life in the United States should be beyond the ideology of anyone else.
There is far too little genuine love in the world to make issue of gay marriage. I am a conservative idealist, of completely independent political views, who understands deeply the personal agendas of public political life, and why these sound bites are used as chess pieces towards continued employment. It doesn't make them right.
Government leaders have a duty to lead, protect and advocate for ALL people. That said, is no reason not to speak your mind about what you approve or disapprove of, what is, or is not for you. But that's about you, no one else.
To condemn a group of people who by law you agreed to govern is wrong. This is beyond liberal or conservative agenda. This is about being human first. And we all start there - we are all that.
There is far too little genuine love in the world to make issue of gay marriage. I am a conservative idealist, of completely independent political views, who understands deeply the personal agendas of public political life, and why these sound bites are used as chess pieces towards continued employment. It doesn't make them right.
Government leaders have a duty to lead, protect and advocate for ALL people. That said, is no reason not to speak your mind about what you approve or disapprove of, what is, or is not for you. But that's about you, no one else.
To condemn a group of people who by law you agreed to govern is wrong. This is beyond liberal or conservative agenda. This is about being human first. And we all start there - we are all that.
11
Gov. Jindal - how exactly do you reconcile these three pieces of what you say in this article?
1 - the "radical liberal" people who are in favor of gay marriage are also intent on taxing and regulating business out of existence
2 - many of the biggest businesses are opposed to your position
3 - the "radical liberals" are able to have any impact in the boardroom of large business - who would be opposed to people intent, as you say, on their destruction?
Businesses don't have faith. They don't attend church. They do not have eternal souls.
Different Christian and Jewish faiths an/or congregations are now allowing same-sex marriage.
No same-sex marriage law forces anyone to marry someone of the same sex, so the ceremony isn't trapping people in a marriage that violates their faith.
Before you push the Bible as the standard for our Judeo-Christian heritage, remember how common it was in the Old Testament to have marriage as between a man and his wives. And remember how recently the same supposed eternal precepts were used by many to justify anti-miscegenation laws and other atrocity.
Things change.
1 - the "radical liberal" people who are in favor of gay marriage are also intent on taxing and regulating business out of existence
2 - many of the biggest businesses are opposed to your position
3 - the "radical liberals" are able to have any impact in the boardroom of large business - who would be opposed to people intent, as you say, on their destruction?
Businesses don't have faith. They don't attend church. They do not have eternal souls.
Different Christian and Jewish faiths an/or congregations are now allowing same-sex marriage.
No same-sex marriage law forces anyone to marry someone of the same sex, so the ceremony isn't trapping people in a marriage that violates their faith.
Before you push the Bible as the standard for our Judeo-Christian heritage, remember how common it was in the Old Testament to have marriage as between a man and his wives. And remember how recently the same supposed eternal precepts were used by many to justify anti-miscegenation laws and other atrocity.
Things change.
19
Several days ago, I saw a comment on an article about this topic that was blunt and to the point. It was also a reminder of the old adage, be careful what you wish for.
We can allow religious people running businesses to discriminate against certain classes based on their religious beliefs if we can accept a distorted view of the constitution. However, we should be able to have so conditions.
First if they run a store where people walk in off the street, the classes that won't be served must be prominently displayed on the door and all windows that can be seen from sidewalks and alleys.
Second all advertising must prominently feature the classes targeted for discrimination.
If any advertising such as a circular or phone solicitation omits this information the business will be fined and closed for three months.
And to ensure that they don't operate in spite of the prohibition, the companies providing them with utilities will be notified and those services will be stopped for the three months.
We can allow religious people running businesses to discriminate against certain classes based on their religious beliefs if we can accept a distorted view of the constitution. However, we should be able to have so conditions.
First if they run a store where people walk in off the street, the classes that won't be served must be prominently displayed on the door and all windows that can be seen from sidewalks and alleys.
Second all advertising must prominently feature the classes targeted for discrimination.
If any advertising such as a circular or phone solicitation omits this information the business will be fined and closed for three months.
And to ensure that they don't operate in spite of the prohibition, the companies providing them with utilities will be notified and those services will be stopped for the three months.
8
Bobby Jindal and others like him are bigots hiding behind faulty religious doctrine. How shameful!
16
Psst.... Bobby, you just accused Corporate America of being a bunch of radical leftists. That's unhinged. Please stop and think about this before you embarrass yourself further.
28
There are reasons why Bobby Jindal's approval rate in Louisiana is around 28% and sinking. For this state, he has become a total embarrassment despised even within his own party. He is not, and will never be, a factor in the next, or any presidential election. No one cares what the thinks.
21
You have to give the Right credit. The repetition and hyperbole are brilliant:
"The left-wing ideologues who oppose religious freedom are the same ones who seek to tax and regulate businesses out of existence. The same people who think that profit making is vulgar believe that religiosity is folly. The fight against this misguided, government-dictating ideology is one fight, not two."
All the right buzzwords repeated in the same lines continue to be embed themselves in a large part of the voting public, although that we view profits as vulgar is a new one on me.
Where is the Democratic response to this nonsense? That is what make me really upset.
"The left-wing ideologues who oppose religious freedom are the same ones who seek to tax and regulate businesses out of existence. The same people who think that profit making is vulgar believe that religiosity is folly. The fight against this misguided, government-dictating ideology is one fight, not two."
All the right buzzwords repeated in the same lines continue to be embed themselves in a large part of the voting public, although that we view profits as vulgar is a new one on me.
Where is the Democratic response to this nonsense? That is what make me really upset.
14
There is a very real disconnect between the Governor Jimdal's call for inclusion, because at its essence, it is rooted in exclusion. He has nothing against LGBT citizens, yet he is pushing a law that would codify discrimination against them. Supporting laws that are rooted in discrimination, cloaked by the veil of religion is the present a wolf in sheets clothing. But to position oneself as standing up to the opinions of Big Corporate entities, after years of taking campaign contributions is hypocritical.
19
"A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us". - Bobby Jindal
I guess this doesn't include tolerance of same-sex marriage, liberals, or big-business, hypocrisy at its finest.
I guess this doesn't include tolerance of same-sex marriage, liberals, or big-business, hypocrisy at its finest.
21
After his embarrassing time on the national stage, why would anyone care what Bobby Jindal has to say? Next an opinion piece by Sarah Palin? There are real intellects out there who are not heard. Enough on the mediocre.
30
I’m a male whose amorous likes are oriented to consenting, adult, human females. However, within the context of being attracted to consenting, adult, human females, I have a strange erotic fetish that the vast majority of people would *correctly* consider evil, perverse, and disgusting. I stay in the closet about my fetish due to my own shame and my respect for the sensitivities of other people. At one time, homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). It was de-listed from the DSM only after an overtly political campaign conducted by a vocal minority. Tragically, politics was allowed to defeat sound clinical practice. Overt LGBT behavior is sick, depraved behavior that is contrary to nature and to the principles of evolution and perpetuation of the species as elucidated by Darwin. It is behavior that is repugnant to the overwhelming majority of our citizens. For government to give the imprimatur of its approval to LGBT behavior by allowing gay marriage is itself depraved. LGBT people need pity and helpful therapy, not government endorsement.
I'm trying so hard to understand the point-of-view expressed by those who oppose marriage on religious grounds, but Jindal's diatribe is so personal, so full of vitriol, so anti-intellectual that I just want to return the hate.
I expect to read about Jindal's opinions as news set within a political context - I'm disappointed that the Times felt the need to give him a platform for espousing beliefs that are illogical and full of loathing for his fellow American citizens. Not all opinions are worthy of expression on the Opinion page.
I expect to read about Jindal's opinions as news set within a political context - I'm disappointed that the Times felt the need to give him a platform for espousing beliefs that are illogical and full of loathing for his fellow American citizens. Not all opinions are worthy of expression on the Opinion page.
26
This isn't a thoughtful argument from a governor; it's the kind of angry and accusatory rant we often hear from Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly. Frankly, I'm embarrassed for Mr. Jindal. He, like many religious conservatives, are afraid the Supreme Court is going to legalize gay marriage for every state in June, and he accuses "radical liberals" for this despite the fact that we have a conservative Supreme Court and an overwhelming majority of people in this country (many of them Republicans) who know this is the right thing to do. He's using partisanship alone to make his case, and he constantly hides behind the idea of "freedom" while ignoring the the contradiction that all people should be free from discrimination. I'm glad the NY Times published this editorial from Governor Jindal. It only reinforces that idea that there is no credible argument against giving gays and lesbians equal treatment under the law.
19
Thank you, thank you, thank you Mr. Jindal!!
Um – besides same-sex marriage there's a ton of other people and stuff I don't like – including my next door neighbor. We should get together and see what else we can come up with. I'm thinking this whole liberty-religious-freedom thing is pretty wide open to interpretation and abuse . And hey - can't thank you enough for allowing me to disguise my personal disgust for pretty much everyone behind the religious curtain – pure brilliance there Bobby boy! So, Bob, um - let's get started! Lots more ground to cover, right?
Um – besides same-sex marriage there's a ton of other people and stuff I don't like – including my next door neighbor. We should get together and see what else we can come up with. I'm thinking this whole liberty-religious-freedom thing is pretty wide open to interpretation and abuse . And hey - can't thank you enough for allowing me to disguise my personal disgust for pretty much everyone behind the religious curtain – pure brilliance there Bobby boy! So, Bob, um - let's get started! Lots more ground to cover, right?
12
Jindal that this bill is designed to protect businesses and individuals from being denied licenses and accreditation based on their religious views on marriage. Has this ever happened in Louisiana? Has anyone suggested that current Louisiana law would allow this to happen? If the answer to both questions is no I don't see what purpose this law has other than grandstanding.
6
Bigotry is not "religious liberty." No matter how Mr. Jindal likes to frame it, it's not conservative Christians who are discriminated against. When conservatives have burning triangles on their front lawns, get beaten and murdered, and denied employment or housing, I can take their claims seriously. Stop whining.
I think Monty Python said it best: "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! I'm being oppressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!"
I think Monty Python said it best: "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! I'm being oppressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!"
15
Our country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. What the religious freedom legislation does is force religion into every fabric of the state. It is wrong.
17
Religious freedom? You've got to be kidding. Who's forcing you to marry a man?
15
What a hero.
4
I hope he does pass this clearly discriminatory law... and I also hope the state of Louisiana gets financially destroyed in the process. I hope every other state boycotts Louisiana. I hope every large business that is located there moves to another state -- or tells the governor that they'll be expanding their business elsewhere. I hope tourists boycott by the thousands. I hope businesses that are there put stickers in their windows stating that they won't discrimination against anyone. I hope the business that DO discriminate against gay citizens become pariahs.
To put it simply, Bobby Jindal wants America to become a Christian theocracy. He cannot be allowed to make that happen. Wedding cake bakers be damned.
To put it simply, Bobby Jindal wants America to become a Christian theocracy. He cannot be allowed to make that happen. Wedding cake bakers be damned.
20
"Bobby" Jindal is an ignoramus and a hypocrite. I have actually read the Bible, not watched highlights of "Veggie Tales" like Jindal. I remind him that shrimp and crawfish jambalaya is clearly forbidden-is that going to be his next article?
17
I'm covering logical fallacies with my Critical Thinking class. This "editorial" is a ready-made lesson plan. Thanks, Bobby and NYT! That said, I am of the opinion that an Op-Ed piece should make an actual argument, not just string together right-wing buzz words and catch phrases. But what do I know? I've been brainwashed by the liberal media elite shrieking radicals.
23
Bobby Jindal--on the wrong side of common sense, humanity and history--again. His arguments for opposing gay marriage are specious, based on the tired old rhetoric of "religious liberty." Will Jindal and others like him ever come to the realization that this isn't about their faith, but other peoples' freedom and rights within a secular society?
18
Governor Jindal makes it clear that for him the right to religion specifically includes the right to bigotry, and he accompanies this cynicism with another, making it clear that his "strategy requires populist social conservatives to ally with the business community on economic matters and corporate titans to side with social conservatives on cultural matters." He actually has the gall to brag that "this is the grand bargain."
11
Gov. Jindal, what if I wanted to discriminate against evangelical Christians because their political and social views offended my deeply held spiritual beliefs (which they do)? Is that OK?
19
In a nutshell:
Jindal 2013: "The Republicans must stop being the stupid party!"
Jindal 2015: "...Oops!"
Jindal 2013: "The Republicans must stop being the stupid party!"
Jindal 2015: "...Oops!"
21
Bobby is a genius....get people worked up over another social value issue and they will forget that roads are deteriorating, schools are failing students, the rich are getting richer and not trickling down from all the tax cuts they've received, and taxes are regressive -- taxing more for basic goods and services so for poorer people, their overall tax burden is higher than the 20%. Way to go deflecting from the real issues....
16
Isn't the Governor's view just a nod to the Far Right to prop up his failing bid for a presidential announcement? Since his state has suffered under his (lack of effective) leadership and he cannot claim any legitimate evidence of his economic and public policies, this is about all he has to keep his ego stoked and his doomed hopes buoyed.
It's pretty sad, isn't it?
It's pretty sad, isn't it?
13
It is good of Governor Jindal to write and expose his pious bigotry and arrogant contempt for those who think differently from himself. Does he really believe that this essay of his will gain him election to the Presidency? This may be a satisfying screed for the political right but to anyone with a family member or friend who is homosexual, Gov. Jindal makes himself into a craven lackey. The office he is looking to attain is that of the Grand Inquisitor.
He is playing loose with history placing religious freedom as a foundational value of the country. Most of the colonies under Britain had established churches, Anglican for the most part. Massachusetts and Connecticut had established Congregationalism. Pennsylvania was strongly Quaker but did not have an established church. Only Rhode Island allowed any religious tradition to exist and be fully enfranchised before the Revolution. After that there was a lingering religious testing as Massachusetts and North Carolina each had religious tests for office well into the 1800s.
The Governor would also do well to examine the Constitution and realize that our Highest Law both guarantees equal privileges to citizens across the several states (Art. IV,sec. 2) as well as prohibits a religious test for holding office (Art. VI). How can a person running for office, who is denied the basic right to marry as you would have it in Louisiana, not be seen as having been religiously tested?
He is playing loose with history placing religious freedom as a foundational value of the country. Most of the colonies under Britain had established churches, Anglican for the most part. Massachusetts and Connecticut had established Congregationalism. Pennsylvania was strongly Quaker but did not have an established church. Only Rhode Island allowed any religious tradition to exist and be fully enfranchised before the Revolution. After that there was a lingering religious testing as Massachusetts and North Carolina each had religious tests for office well into the 1800s.
The Governor would also do well to examine the Constitution and realize that our Highest Law both guarantees equal privileges to citizens across the several states (Art. IV,sec. 2) as well as prohibits a religious test for holding office (Art. VI). How can a person running for office, who is denied the basic right to marry as you would have it in Louisiana, not be seen as having been religiously tested?
8
Gah..... who keeps giving this nitwit press space?
24
The fundamental question is this -- are you born gay? Science thus far is not conclusive. It is not the same as being biologically a woman, black, disabled etc yet because we have yet to show that gay people did not choose to be gay. Choice means freedom for all. If you can choose to be gay, I can choose to not like that you are gay and disassociate as I see fit. However, if being gay is not a choice but is something biological, then the conservative argument has little merit and is akin to racial discrimination. But as of current science, the burden for proof lies in those who claim they cannot choose their sexual orientation.
Come on Bobby, get offa your ideological high horse. If there is a Gay-Rights Parade where your restaurant is, just close for the day. Gone are the days when black members of a basketball team, traveling in the South, could only be served--"around back, where the kitchen is". Now, that wasn't very "separate but equal" now, was it Bobby?
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
16
This is a man who rules a state as its executive, but is (assuming that his is not mere de' rigeur political pandering) clearly DEEPLY confused - as all are who actually believe this - about what constitutes religious liberty, and how far it can go.
I am reminded, however, about Rousseau's observation about people getting the governance they deserve. Wow, I wonder how THAT plays into this!
Scary thought. The whole thing's scary.
I am reminded, however, about Rousseau's observation about people getting the governance they deserve. Wow, I wonder how THAT plays into this!
Scary thought. The whole thing's scary.
14
holding firm? More like desperately clinging to an issue, any issue, to stay relevant.
14
It's so interesting to see social conservative GOP governors and presidential wannabees self-destructing in front of our very eyes over an issue that I never would have thought would be put to the forefront, basically the issue of homosexuality. Oh, the social conservatives are trying to cast this debate as one over religious freedom, but by and large, a new generation of Americans are seeing this for what it is... an all-out attack by an older generation of Robertsons and Falwells trying to once more put wedge issues into presidential politics.
It's not going to work this time, or ever again.
It's not going to work this time, or ever again.
12
This starts out with a premise that only conservatives and business leaders are facing a choice. I expect that there are fiscal conservatives who have no problem with gay marriage. I also expect that there are liberals who are against gay marriage. Jindal tries to paint everyone in narrow categories, with wedge issues. He makes it seem as though no liberals support religious freedom, and that only conservatives do support it. Things would be better if we had a completely separate definition of "marriage" from "holy matrimony", with "marriage" being the only thing which conveys legal rights and benefits and it non-discriminatory. Any particular religion can define holy matrimony in any way it wants, but the clergy cannot perform "marriage" unless the clergy won't discriminate. That gives complete freedom of religion since they can define the benefits of holy matrimony any way they want within the context of their religion; they just don't get any legal rights.
5
First sentence, second paragraph: "In Indiana and Arkansas, large corporations recently joined left-wing activists to bully elected officials into backing away from strong protections for religious liberty."
_________
What a warped description and view of the situation. I stopped reading there.
_________
What a warped description and view of the situation. I stopped reading there.
19
To the commenters who are trying to use logic to convince Mr. Jindal of the errors in his reasoning – don’t waste your time. Mr. Jindal graduated with honors from Brown University at the age of 20, and then went on to be a Rhodes Scholar. He is extremely intelligent and is keenly aware of the errors in his reasoning. I can’t even imagine that he wrote this op-ed because it is simply too difficult for someone of his intellect to accomplish this degree of illogic. This piece is cynical pandering designed to rally his base and raise the ire of his opponents. Politicians of both parties should be ignored when they behave this divisive manner.
15
Jindal's op-ed should be reason enough for him to be never elected president. Right wing ideologues loves to throw the word freedom around, like someone is impinging on their rights. Jindal and people like him can freely do and say what they like. The Constitution guarantees everyone's right to free speech and religion. By the way, conservatives love to point out that when Clinton was president he signed the Religious Freedom Act. (Why that act had to be passed is questionable, since it is already guaranteed by the Constitution.) The Religious Freedom Act is Federal Law and Federal Law supersedes any like state laws, so the state laws in Indiana and Arkansas are wastes of time. Finally, corporations are not people with religious beliefs, so religion should not enter into the transaction of goods and service.
11
And what happens, Govenor Jindal, when businesses use religion to justify other forms of discrimination? Religious belief or not, discriminating against same-sex marriage is just that: discrimination. If a wedding photographer wants to pass on good business because they don't approve of gay marriage, that's their choice but don't try to protect and justify that choice under religious grounds. It becomes a slippery slope when that occurs.
11
Sadly the photo says a lot.
Religious freedom under the constitution means the freedom to practice your religion in your home and in your house of worship. Civil rights means the freedom not to be discriminated against based on your religious beliefs.
Jindal seems to think that religious freedom means the right to take your religion to the state legislature and forcing everybody into a public display of religion in a house of government. He seems to think that civil rights means the right to discriminate against others based on the religious beliefs of the discriminating party.
Not a very Christian attitude in my opinion.
Religious freedom under the constitution means the freedom to practice your religion in your home and in your house of worship. Civil rights means the freedom not to be discriminated against based on your religious beliefs.
Jindal seems to think that religious freedom means the right to take your religion to the state legislature and forcing everybody into a public display of religion in a house of government. He seems to think that civil rights means the right to discriminate against others based on the religious beliefs of the discriminating party.
Not a very Christian attitude in my opinion.
8
It seems that Mr. Jindal, whose ancestry suggests Hindu or Brahman, is primarily concerned with presumed--or, more accurately, imagined--assaults on Christian faith. The religion of a recent Republican presidential candidate (who wisely decided not to go for it again in the upcoming election) only abandoned its well-known practice of polygamy a little more than a century ago. (You've probably heard the popular claim that same-sex marriage threatens to lead to polygamy, which is like saying the internet will lead to television.) You see, "religious freedom" demands the question of which religion takes precedence in the event of a conflict. Is a "restricted" establishment eligible for "religious liberty" protection if its owners sustain a "sincerely held religious belief" that Jews are unfit for association? Ironically, a few decades ago, Jindal wouldn't have had a hope of holding a prominent political post because of his ancestry, no matter how Christianized he claimed to be.
As for these "Christian" businesses which are being "bullied" by "left-wing activists," I always wonder how many of them are open of Sunday in direct violation of an actual Commandment. Or how many pregnant brides and/or previously divorced married couples "Christian" florists, bakers, caterers, etc., have done business with.
As for these "Christian" businesses which are being "bullied" by "left-wing activists," I always wonder how many of them are open of Sunday in direct violation of an actual Commandment. Or how many pregnant brides and/or previously divorced married couples "Christian" florists, bakers, caterers, etc., have done business with.
12
Evangelicals have opened a Pandora's Box in asserting their rights to discriminate against people they don't like based on religious beliefs. Would it now be possible for a secular humanist employer to routinely reject job applicants who believe in creationism, based on the deeply-held conviction that such beliefs are evidence of lack of critical thinking skills? After all, where is it written that only religious people can have "strongly-held beliefs"?.
13
Simply, only in countries where a certain kind of religion is considered the one true religion, can an business choose customers based on religious arguments. In those countries there is no freedom from religion. Mr. Jindal and his ilk should move there, and cowardly discriminate by claiming religious liberty.
7
The logic is absolutely stunning in its' illogic:
"A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us."
The law will basically be, "if you do something I disagree with, I am not required to tolerate you".
These two things are not the same.
"A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us."
The law will basically be, "if you do something I disagree with, I am not required to tolerate you".
These two things are not the same.
11
The right wing always says "the radical left" whenever things don't swing their way. Same-sex marriage and the 21st century are joined at the hip. Gov Jindal can believe whatever he wants as long as he doesn't enforce his beliefs on anyone else.
8
I find it continually fascinating that the right to discrimination based on immutable characteristics -- gender, race, ethnicity, and in this case sexual orientation, none of which are a choice -- is grounded in "religious beliefs" -- which are completely a matter of choice, and highly mutable. Yet those who chose their "religious beliefs" claim the need for legislated protection -- in order to practice this discrimination. Go figure.
12
Bobby Jindal's rant is a window into the Id of the Republican party these days: delusional, intolerant, simultaneously playing the tough guy and victim cards. Like Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, and the rest of the GOP crew, they retreat into whiny petulance when they can't get their own way or are challenged on anything.
The dog always eats their homework. They're always being picked on by mean kids. The Republican Party isn't the party of ideas: it's the party of excuses, threats, and broken promises. And nothing is ever their fault when things go wrong - and we're talking about nearly 40 years of failure now.
And while the freak-out show distracts everyone, they and their corporate owners are making out like bandits. They run government like a slum lord operates an apartment building.
The dog always eats their homework. They're always being picked on by mean kids. The Republican Party isn't the party of ideas: it's the party of excuses, threats, and broken promises. And nothing is ever their fault when things go wrong - and we're talking about nearly 40 years of failure now.
And while the freak-out show distracts everyone, they and their corporate owners are making out like bandits. They run government like a slum lord operates an apartment building.
23
"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever !"
The Old Confederacy is back.
Take a bow, Governor Jindal.
The Old Confederacy is back.
Take a bow, Governor Jindal.
18
The Christian religious right who continue to grossly misinterpret Christianity forget that Jesus was a radical, eager to embrace people from all walks of life. This 21st century plea for "religious liberty" is just Jim Crow revisited by people who are terrified of change.
13
Typical Republican rhetoric; I have the right to discriminate because you do not have my religious beliefs. In the not so distant past the refrain was I have the right to discriminate because you do not have my color skin. Even now, women do not have the right to contraception, abortions, or health care because it is against the religion of the predominately old white party. Again the Republicans show that you have to think like them, act like them, and try desperately to look like them or you cannot be a good "American" and certainly not a patriot. As the GOP candidates have been heard saying, "Time to take back our country", just not in the way they intended.
11
This is a call for mutual respect, which is decidedly lacking in the pro-gay rights contingency towards those of religious belief. Thank you, Mr. Jindal, for taking an unpopular stand. I would say you are already in the minority.
There is a clear difference between discrimination against LBGTs and religious belief. Those who don't hold the religious conviction that homosexuality is morally wrong have a very hard time understanding those that do. This should not be hard to codify in law: where you cross the line from living your personal convictions into unreasonable discrimination. Forcing a Mormon Bishop to perform a gay marriage, for example is wrong. So is refusing service to gay people in a restaurant owned by Christians.
Lets have a respectful conversation and define the boundary.
There is a clear difference between discrimination against LBGTs and religious belief. Those who don't hold the religious conviction that homosexuality is morally wrong have a very hard time understanding those that do. This should not be hard to codify in law: where you cross the line from living your personal convictions into unreasonable discrimination. Forcing a Mormon Bishop to perform a gay marriage, for example is wrong. So is refusing service to gay people in a restaurant owned by Christians.
Lets have a respectful conversation and define the boundary.
1
Well, he can opine all he wants on the side of his angels but he still won't get the GOP nomination and he will never be president of anything. These lock-step conservatives do not believe in anything. They cynically go where the cultural war's winds blow them. What these against-everything conservatives fail to understand is that laws work in many mysterious ways. So, Bobby Jindal, be very careful what you do legislate because it can indeed bite you back! I just love those unintended consequences!
8
People who choose to impose their beliefs based on 2000 year old texts on others must start with giving up the conveniences of the modern world. Start with giving up your smartphones, cars, electricity, etc and live your life in conditions that were prevalent 2000 years ago.
10
IF Jindal, and others, want to restrict the legal rights of people, and the legal implications inherent in marriage then they should. However, other states should not recognize any marriage performed in his state relative to the legal implications of marriage in their state.
1
So many bad things have happened to Louisiana over the years that it's impossible to say where Jindal's governorship ranks but by any objective measure, he's been awful. Now he wants attention because he wants to try to steal some votes from Huckabee or Cruz or some other right wing candidate who might get support from so called religious conservatives. I'd say shame on him but someone with a degree in biology who was a Rhodes Scholar and still denies climate change has already debased himself well past any point where it would mean anything. Here's hoping he gets called out at every opportunity for the hypocrite and opportunist he is.
17
He has become as shrill and incomprehensible as Michelle Bachman. I expect Cruz etc. to begin to move in that direction as they all try and out do each other.
9
I have never wanted to live in Louisiana. Now, I do not want to visit there either.
8
I applaud Bobby Jindal for taking the right stand on this social issue. The definition of marriage should not be perverted by a small segment of society actively pushing their alternative lifestyle choices on others through constant litigation in the court system. When put to a ballot laws allowing homosexual marriage are usually defeated. It is only when activist judges overrule the will of the people that homosexuals have made inroads. Once the Supreme Court rules in favor of State bans on homosexual marriage governors like Bobby Jindal will reinstate their State's bans and homosexuals will retreat back into the closet from which they sprang.
That he thinks it's just the radicals on the left that are against these types of laws speaks volumes.
7
It's not just "left-wing activists," the "radical left," "radical liberals," and "left-wing ideologues" who oppose discrimination. In fact, discrimination, bigotry, and intolerance are loathed by Americans across the political spectrum.
8
Thank you, Governor Jindal, for setting down your pandering bigotry for the record. This from a man with a 27% approval rating in his own state, one that is pushing to teach creationism in public schools. A great example for the the world to admire.
10
Gov Jindal writes as though he is proud of his record in LA. Would that be LA wonderful education or health care systems or the environment or infrastructure or the list can go on.
I bet the Gov. caves to the"radical liberals " as soon asNew Orleans has their first convention cancellation
I bet the Gov. caves to the"radical liberals " as soon asNew Orleans has their first convention cancellation
10
I too felt called to live my faith through my business but I would have despised myself as a coward if I demanded legal cover before I reject a client whose goals are unacceptable. And how exactly does this work: Do you really imagine Christ wants you to use your business to tell people face to face that their sex habits are evil? Really??
4
So he is the elected voice of a certain segment of the American people but does that authorize him to dictate policy for all of the rest? Well even if you need a piece of paper to tell us that we are free, freedom is not something that can be legislated, given or taken away.. On the contrary we give power to that piece of paper and those who claim to speak for all of us. The NYT is turning into a publication that is not what I initially subscribed to. More and more I see it twisting in the winds of advocacy.
1
One person's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.
5
Religious liberty means that you have the freedom to decide what YOU believe and what YOU want to do about it. It does not mean that you have the right to make other people behave according to the tenets of your religion or to encode those tenets in secular law.
Here in Minnesota we had Somali grocery cashiers who were refusing to handle pork products and Somali cab drivers who were refusing to transport blind people with guide dogs or any customer carrying alcohol.
The cab drivers were told that if they wanted to serve the airport, they had to take all paying passengers. It was explained to the cashiers that if they wanted to stay in their jobs as cashiers, then it was not their place to judge other people's purchases.
What is the purpose of refusing to serve GLBT customers? Will it stop the customers from being gay? Will it stop them from seeking marriage? No, in both cases. But what it will do will be to make the business person a celebrity martyr in fundamentalist Christian circles, and that's clearly more fun than being an ordinary business person.
Here in Minnesota we had Somali grocery cashiers who were refusing to handle pork products and Somali cab drivers who were refusing to transport blind people with guide dogs or any customer carrying alcohol.
The cab drivers were told that if they wanted to serve the airport, they had to take all paying passengers. It was explained to the cashiers that if they wanted to stay in their jobs as cashiers, then it was not their place to judge other people's purchases.
What is the purpose of refusing to serve GLBT customers? Will it stop the customers from being gay? Will it stop them from seeking marriage? No, in both cases. But what it will do will be to make the business person a celebrity martyr in fundamentalist Christian circles, and that's clearly more fun than being an ordinary business person.
15
This reminds me of a Danny DeVito line from a very good movie called "Other People's Money." He tells a shareholders gathering that the surest way to go out of business is to get a bigger and bigger share of a smaller and smaller market.
"The last company that made buggy whips made the best buggy whips in the world."
Bobby Jindal has apparently cornered the market on "buggy whips."
"The last company that made buggy whips made the best buggy whips in the world."
Bobby Jindal has apparently cornered the market on "buggy whips."
10
I've never understood how "religious freedom" supports a unitary definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Jindal clearly believes "marriage" has defined terms. That, by itself is ok. But what is the justification for imposing those believes on others?
The problem with the religious freedom laws passed recently is that they are less about freedom and more about setting the same religious standard for everyone.
The problem with the religious freedom laws passed recently is that they are less about freedom and more about setting the same religious standard for everyone.
2
sorry Mr. Jindal, this country was built on capitalism and freedom from religion by the government. that means if you partake in the free economy, you don't get to claim religious exemption.
4
Religious liberty? Horsefeathers! I'll vote to let you live with your belief in the supernatural if you'll simply back my philosophy of live and let live for the rest of us.
I am not gay, but like most citizens, know people who are, or have family members that are gay. They pose no threat to me, nor do they wish to pray you out of your silly 12th century thinking. What scares me is the nonsense spouted by the many in the GOP who seriously think they have what it takes to be president of this nation.
I am not gay, but like most citizens, know people who are, or have family members that are gay. They pose no threat to me, nor do they wish to pray you out of your silly 12th century thinking. What scares me is the nonsense spouted by the many in the GOP who seriously think they have what it takes to be president of this nation.
5
So refreshing for a leading American conservative to stand up for being at the bottom of current thinking. The bottom line for this firebrand of the Right, assiduously assuring that citizens can maintain the right to feel and act on those feelings in a fully feeling manner. Fantastic, I say. And, bully for him, as Teddy might have said. Bible believing blowhards everywhere stand and cheer
from the bottom of their hearts and have now a champion to challenge the corporations who dare to cower before the liberal elites. President Jindal!
from the bottom of their hearts and have now a champion to challenge the corporations who dare to cower before the liberal elites. President Jindal!
4
Mr. Jindal suffers from a basic misunderstanding of logic and a complete lack of concern for fairness under the law. Protecting everybody's right to equal treatment under the law has nothing to do with religious liberty. This is simply another sad excuse to treat those different from yourself with less respect and fewer rights than those you offer to people who look and act like you. Fortunately, Americans are not as stupid or ignorant as Mr. Jindal believes they are----and the Constitution of the United States protects all Americans, not just those who attend Mr. Jindal's church.
4
Governor Jindal is such a fraud. He knows the Supreme Court is about to rule that bans against gay marriage violate the 14th Amendment. So he plays to conservative evangelicals as "a man of faith" knowing that when he has to recognize the right to gay marriage he can blame it on the liberals in Washington.
Meanwhile his state is falling apart under the sterling fiscal management of his conservative terms as governor. They face cuts to all basic services like highway repair, schools, the state university to name a few. But rather than do his job to fix these problems he spends his time on a soapbox railing against gay marriage.
Meanwhile his state is falling apart under the sterling fiscal management of his conservative terms as governor. They face cuts to all basic services like highway repair, schools, the state university to name a few. But rather than do his job to fix these problems he spends his time on a soapbox railing against gay marriage.
10
Louisiana's takeover by the hardliners has left the state in an economic shambles. Such a mess that even the massive influx of "dark" money into the electoral process may not be enough to subvert the will of an aroused voter population. So Jindal now follows the time honored strategy of whipping up bias and hatred toward a "dangerous" minority. Jesus couldn't have spoken any plainer about His contempt for discrimination.
5
Gov. Jindal isn't any more impressive than he was at his disastrous State of the Union rebuttal years ago.
Interesting about the number of Republican-controlled state houses and governors. But if you look at the states that are doing well, then, by golly, they're almost all under Democratic control. Could that mean something?
http://www.measureofamerica.org/
Interesting about the number of Republican-controlled state houses and governors. But if you look at the states that are doing well, then, by golly, they're almost all under Democratic control. Could that mean something?
http://www.measureofamerica.org/
6
Jindal has managed to get all the dog whistles for the far right into his piece. "Left wing activists, religious liberty, discrimination against Christians, radical liberals, freedom and free enterprise, onerous impulses of government, Hollywood and media elite, tax and regulate businesses out of existence..."
What is missing is the simple fact that nobody is being forced to actually be part of a same sex marriage, the real reason for this legislation. No person is being told they cannot practice whatever religion they choose. What IS part of the law is that when it comes to public accommodations, all must be served equally. This is what Jindal opposes. Can a Jewish owner refuse to serve a ham sandwich? Can a Muslim taxi driver refuse to take a passenger who has been drinking? Can blacks be refused service because the owner believes they are cursed as they are the sons of Ham?
The very same arguments have been used before every time white Christian authority has been challenged. It was wrong then and just as wrong now.
What is missing is the simple fact that nobody is being forced to actually be part of a same sex marriage, the real reason for this legislation. No person is being told they cannot practice whatever religion they choose. What IS part of the law is that when it comes to public accommodations, all must be served equally. This is what Jindal opposes. Can a Jewish owner refuse to serve a ham sandwich? Can a Muslim taxi driver refuse to take a passenger who has been drinking? Can blacks be refused service because the owner believes they are cursed as they are the sons of Ham?
The very same arguments have been used before every time white Christian authority has been challenged. It was wrong then and just as wrong now.
9
This is a matter of Constitutional human rights - not a matter of religious freedom at all. Any American is free to attend whatever religious institution sh/he chooses.
4
When you open an establishment you have the duty to server every customer who walks in regardless of his or her faith or lack of it. Government should protect the consumer from any such discrimination instead of encouraging it. People like Bobby Jindal belong to the last century.
6
In addition to staking out extremist positions to make himself an attractive presidential candidate, Jindal might also be trying to solve the state's long-term budget woes. Corporate welfare is out of control here in Louisiana, and this hateful legislation will drive business away. Hollywood South will no longer bleed the state dry because, if Jindal's bill passes, there will no longer BE a Hollywood South.
5
How religious freedom mean one group's beliefs will prevent the passage of laws to allow other people to practice their freedom. The way to strengthen marriage is to work on one's own relationship, not to judge.
I also wonder why Mr Jindal is so proud of cutting taxes yet is governor of a state that takes some of the highest levels of federal support?
I just don't see how this supports his position.
I also wonder why Mr Jindal is so proud of cutting taxes yet is governor of a state that takes some of the highest levels of federal support?
I just don't see how this supports his position.
8
Mr. Jindal has his religion and beliefs and I have mine. They are apparently different in many respects. That is what religious freedom is about. His differ from mine and vice versa. Nowhere can I find in the U.S. Constitution any right that can be interpreted as an entitlement to impose one's beliefs on another. This seems to be what certain politicians believe. Religion has no place in politics. America is a pluralistic society, to try to impose one set of beliefs on all is not even worthy of consideration. Mr. Jindal should find another way of pandering to his perceived 'base'.
6
Mr. Jindal:
Your complaints of being pressured by big business are absurd. If only liberals had the influence on corporations you assert, we wouldn't be having this debate. Your problem is that, as a free-market capitalist, you are debating yourself on this issue. It's profits before people in that world, so, how does it feel when the shoe is on the other foot? Where did you learn your naive view of this situation, the Marie Antoinette School of Economics?
Your complaints of being pressured by big business are absurd. If only liberals had the influence on corporations you assert, we wouldn't be having this debate. Your problem is that, as a free-market capitalist, you are debating yourself on this issue. It's profits before people in that world, so, how does it feel when the shoe is on the other foot? Where did you learn your naive view of this situation, the Marie Antoinette School of Economics?
11
Well, Bobby, get ready for people to remember that the free exercise of religion, for Christians & just about every other faith, includes caring for the poor & homeless & hungry & destitute. This is beginning to dawn on a few people & after all, it will be sauce for the goose, so to speak. Teddy Kennedy was once asked by a Senate colleague just why he persisted in pursuing these causes to help the less fortunate, to which Kennedy replied, "Haven't you ever read the New Testament?"
What the Right is doing to twist the whole notion of religious liberty confounds logic & common sense & what my faith calls me to do in the world. It will come back to bite you.
What the Right is doing to twist the whole notion of religious liberty confounds logic & common sense & what my faith calls me to do in the world. It will come back to bite you.
6
Liberals DID win at the ballot box in 2008 and 2012. That's why Barack Obama is President. But Bobby Jindal is one of the haters who ignore the facts they don't like and spin their prejudices to make it sound as if the perpetrators of discrimination are the real victims.
Fortunately, these rants amount to little more than the last shrieks of angry babies screaming for attention before drifting off to sleep. The adults who know better simply need to ignore the clamor and take care of the important business at hand.
Fortunately, these rants amount to little more than the last shrieks of angry babies screaming for attention before drifting off to sleep. The adults who know better simply need to ignore the clamor and take care of the important business at hand.
9
I can't stand Cruz, either, but he just signed the death certificate of Jindal's presidential dreams.
4
Does anybody care about a Jindal opinion?
7
Jindel is an intellectually bankrupt panderer, first to Islamophobes (with his Muslims-only zones claim about Birmingham), now to homophobes (with this op-ed).
10
There is so much hatred in the world. A truly religious person would celebrate love, not work diligently to erect barriers against it.
His attempt to make liberals and progressives into some kind of bogey man just sickens me. I understand why my father left the Republican party.
His attempt to make liberals and progressives into some kind of bogey man just sickens me. I understand why my father left the Republican party.
12
You can only shake your head and laugh and these idiot Republicans. Jindal is either completely oblivious or having grandiose delusions if he believes that corporate America is going to back down to his threat. Louisiana is having enough economic troubles as it is and now he is going to give them a reason to relocate and/or not do business in his state? I feel sorry for the residents of Louisiana if he is actually able to get this policy passed..
10
The homophobic version of the Sodom and Gomorrah story was an eleventh century invention, by the ascetic Peter Damien. The original Jewish version held that God destroyed these cities because the people were greedy, arrogant and cruel, and especially that they were cruel to the poor and to the immigrant. The later version shifted the onus to the most vulnerable of minorities and conveniently got rid of an original version that was problematic to would-be oligarchs. The Jewish values of the original version are compatible with similar principles from Greco-Roman teaching - the idea that the rich and powerful have a higher duty to ensure justice and fairness for all. These principles are a critical part of the Enlightenment beliefs of the Founders. But they're the first values would-be oligarchs kick under the rug.
10
Believing in freedom, to use Mr. Jindal's phrase, means not believing that the government should systematically deny any particular segment of its citizenry and deny them civil rights. So in fact, Mr. Jindal does not believe in freedom.
It does not take left-wing activists, again to use Mr. Jindal's term, to understand that. Plenty of people from all political beliefs, parts of the country, religions and walks of life have woken up to understand that they have gay neighbors, or colleagues, or friends, or children -- and they're all people who deserve equal treatment under the law, just like everyone else.
Sometimes slowly, sometimes more quickly, America has always moved in that direction. Mr Jindal has his head in the sand. He is on the wrong side of history.
It does not take left-wing activists, again to use Mr. Jindal's term, to understand that. Plenty of people from all political beliefs, parts of the country, religions and walks of life have woken up to understand that they have gay neighbors, or colleagues, or friends, or children -- and they're all people who deserve equal treatment under the law, just like everyone else.
Sometimes slowly, sometimes more quickly, America has always moved in that direction. Mr Jindal has his head in the sand. He is on the wrong side of history.
8
The accompanying photo says a lot. Why does he impose religion on the opening of a government meeting?
6
Why do religious zealots think about gay sex more than gay people do? Who cares what other people do without bothering any one? Since gay marriage became legal in Iowa most people haven't even noticed.
21
So glad to see Mike Pence isn't the only stupid governor in the US.
12
So I guess it's time to cross Louisiana off my list of places to visit.
13
I find it strange that in such a passionate defense of his Christian views Jindal writes "The same people who think profit making is vulgar believe that religiosity is folly." Jesus Christ, the centerpiece of Jindal's religion, repeatedly decried profit making and yet was silent on homosexuality. The compassionate love that is a cornerstone of Christianity should push Jindal to rejoice at two people in love, not recoil because they are the same sex.
9
Boycott Mardi Gras in the Big Easy until this clown is out of office or changes his tune.
11
Bobby Jindal is a stauchly conservative ignoramous who has pillaged the state of Louisisana and evicerated the educational system. Louisiana's political leadership is repressive, racist, anti-choice, anti-education, anti-science, and homophobic. I support corporations and individuals who vote with their dollars and stay away from investing in this state!
9
I can't help but think that Mr. Jindal wanted to publish this in the New York Times so that he would receive exactly the (deservedly) horrified response that he has gotten, which he can now use as proof of the animosity of the Rabid Radical Left to his message about the "real" meaning of marriage: God and capitalism.
Mr. Jindal and many others on the far right side of American society and politics appear to need to portray themselves as victims and welcome, even court, opportunities to be martyred warriors for their right to disenfranchise and marginalize everyone they perceive as "other."
And then they call it freedom.
Mr. Jindal and many others on the far right side of American society and politics appear to need to portray themselves as victims and welcome, even court, opportunities to be martyred warriors for their right to disenfranchise and marginalize everyone they perceive as "other."
And then they call it freedom.
9
Doubling down on losing causes seems to be the Republican Party's entire strategy these days.
9
Those conservatives who, like you Governor, would support discrimination and offense in the name of the principle of religious liberty, seem to be locked into an erroneous understanding of it. The founding principle of this country, as you so rightly pointed out, was intended to protect those who came to this land to flee from the persecution they suffered elsewhere to practice their religion. Persecution. Does that ring any bells?
To my knowledge no one intends to curtail that freedom. In this country everyone maintains their right to adhere to and practice their faith just so long as it DOES NOT CAUSE HARM to others. When it does, that is where that liberty stops (as J Stuart Mill said so much better than I)
Refusal of service, to my knowledge, is not a religious practice. In fact, it is the very opposite. And it definitely causes harm. End of story.
To my knowledge no one intends to curtail that freedom. In this country everyone maintains their right to adhere to and practice their faith just so long as it DOES NOT CAUSE HARM to others. When it does, that is where that liberty stops (as J Stuart Mill said so much better than I)
Refusal of service, to my knowledge, is not a religious practice. In fact, it is the very opposite. And it definitely causes harm. End of story.
4
The liberal paradox: I am tolerant of other people's ideas unless I disagree with them. What happended to disagreeing on policy and beliefs without making it personal? There is no one size fits all mentality in this country except the general beliefs of patriotism and the love of freedoms established in the Constitution.
1
Louisiana is one of the most backward, primitive, ignorant states in the country. All the stats prove it. No surprise there is a religious nut in the governor's mansion. For the fools that voted for him: stay there, read your bibles, hunt some gator, and raise BillyBob to hate those different from him. Meanwhile, the smart folks will leave the state, not visit the state, not spend money in the state, or pay any attention whatsoever to what the reptiles down there are thinking and saying. Let them slither through the bayou with Bobby Jindal until the Rapture.
10
This is, of course, little more than a "water-testing" Op-Ed re a possible run for the presidency. As such, I would simply say that it is weak. Even if I agreed with him, his stentorian arrogance (and, sadly, ignorance of the Constitution), and his castigating and, frankly, mean-spirited tone do not recommend him for higher office.
5
Religious rights would also include the right to cut the clitoris of young daughters. Would you also consider that a right to be defended?
7
Jesus had nothing to say about gays. We do find the Bible denouncing gays in Leviticus, juxtaposed to verses warning about the consequences of violating the Sabbath. I know the Bayou State is big on jambalaya and gumbo. Crawfish, shrimp, catfish, pork- all an abomination to the Lord. I believe the punishment for eating non-kosher foods isn't the death penalty, just a declaration that the offender is unclean and in need of atonement.
However, regarding that pesky Sabbath observance, which is one of the Ten Commandments? The punishment for knowingly violating the laws is death by public stoning. So the next time Jindal carries something outside an eruv, ignites a fire, walks more than the allowable distance. . . from sunset Friday evening to roughly an hour after sunset Saturday evening. . .
the punishment is clear. death in the public square by stoning. Jesus also said something about "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." Well, I'm a hypocrite. But I hope those launching the heaviest missiles with the most velocity include some of our gay sisters and brothers who happen to possess really good throwing arms. We'll also allow lefties, who at one point were deemed the devil's spawn. (the latin term for left is sinister, right is dexter, both persist in current medical lingo. of course Koufax, Spahn, Carlton, Kershaw, Randy Johnson and other left-handed pitchers really had nasty stuff, cursed by many batters.)
However, regarding that pesky Sabbath observance, which is one of the Ten Commandments? The punishment for knowingly violating the laws is death by public stoning. So the next time Jindal carries something outside an eruv, ignites a fire, walks more than the allowable distance. . . from sunset Friday evening to roughly an hour after sunset Saturday evening. . .
the punishment is clear. death in the public square by stoning. Jesus also said something about "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." Well, I'm a hypocrite. But I hope those launching the heaviest missiles with the most velocity include some of our gay sisters and brothers who happen to possess really good throwing arms. We'll also allow lefties, who at one point were deemed the devil's spawn. (the latin term for left is sinister, right is dexter, both persist in current medical lingo. of course Koufax, Spahn, Carlton, Kershaw, Randy Johnson and other left-handed pitchers really had nasty stuff, cursed by many batters.)
7
I also lived with another man when I was single; I called him my roommate.
Look at the number of comments here; almost 1,500, an outrageous number. Religious people and those who still believe in family values are extremely naive to believe that this constant media and political hammering of gay marriage is about nothing less than a convenient way to destroy freedom of religion in this country.
Look at the number of comments here; almost 1,500, an outrageous number. Religious people and those who still believe in family values are extremely naive to believe that this constant media and political hammering of gay marriage is about nothing less than a convenient way to destroy freedom of religion in this country.
4
Bobby Jindal pens pieces like this one so that Louisiana voters who are scared of gays will turn out in high numbers and--you guessed it--vote for him again. He's well motivated, considering what a mess his state has gotten into under his administration. He's also a proud bigot. This isn't the first time that people have used their religion to oppress others and, sadly, it won't be the last, but that's what it IS.
5
It would be crying shame if gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender Americans and their millions of supporters decided to forgo spending time in Louisiana until Governor Jindal has graduated to his next job at Fox or the Heritage Foundation. What would become of the $1.8 billion budget deficit the "conservative" governor has run up? Laissez les bon temps roulez, Bobby!
7
Jindahl has nothing else in his playbook. This is a desperate attempt to gain traction in a presidential race in which he is a non-factor.
7
I wonder, if Bobby Jindal has ever tried to walk into a store and be refused service due to his brown skin. I wonder if he would feel any better about it, if the store owner said, "don't take it personally, but it is against my religious beliefs to serve brown people". I wonder if he would be propagating discrimination today, if he had grown up in LA in the 50's and had his own taste of it.
13
ORIGINALIST? In my opinion, Bobby Jindal is the last person I'd consider to be a Constitutional scholar. If he were, he would know that the Founding Fathers, as sons of the Enlightenment, firmly believed that human logic and rational thinking would serve the country better than embarking upon the Balkanization of our culture in the name of religious freedom. It is patently absurd that a pizza parlor, for example, will sell its food to anybody for any occasion, except same sex marriages. Providing pizza is not forcing anyone to participate in the marriage rites. In a strongly Catholic state like LA, Jindal, as governor, should be aware that the Pope publicly embraces the rights of LGBT people. He wants followers of the church to be more concerned with Jesus' doctrine of love than with the sexual practices of others. Discrimination is synonymous with the bogus religious freedom restoration acts, that permit certain religious practices to prohibit the religious practices of others. The people who have caused wars and genocides often do so in the name of religion. None of them has ever claimed to be homosexual. Clearly, heterosexuals need to accept the right of fellow Americans to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Jindal, by practicing religious bigotry, is exhibiting disloyalty to the Constitution of the US of America. Not so long ago, people of Jindal's ethnicity would have been discriminated against because of having dark skin. Now he oppresses others?
3
"Since I became governor in 2008, Louisiana has become one of the best places to do business in America. I made it a priority to cut taxes, reform our ethics laws, invigorate our schools with bold merit-based changes and parental choice, and completely revamp work-force training to better suit businesses."
It struck me as odd that Jindal mentions schools in this paragraph - until I realized that he was talking about being friendly to the businesses who
"sell" charter schools.
Don't get me wrong, there are people involved in charter schools who are passionate about education, but there are probably just as many if not more who are just looking to make a buck.
It struck me as odd that Jindal mentions schools in this paragraph - until I realized that he was talking about being friendly to the businesses who
"sell" charter schools.
Don't get me wrong, there are people involved in charter schools who are passionate about education, but there are probably just as many if not more who are just looking to make a buck.
6
How can you tell if someone is Catholic or Protestant? Single or Married? I can't. Perhaps the "Christians" have some special way to tell if you are gay or not. I think it's just one more way America is held hostage to the extreme views of one small (yes small) group of bigots. Discrimination always has an excuse.
5
What breathtaking chutzpah. It is to neuter holdouts like Jindal that the Supreme Court must act. Religious liberty has its limits, and some people need these spelled out. Marriage equality is long overdue.
However this does get him an op-ed in NYT, and no publicity is bad publicity....or is that being too cynical?
However this does get him an op-ed in NYT, and no publicity is bad publicity....or is that being too cynical?
5
I get so tired of people using religion to spread hate and prejudice.... Please tell me how it affects anyone if two people who love each other want to be treated equally an be allowed to marry? Marriage is not exclusively a religious ceremony, atheists can get married too! It is a legal agreement between two people that gives them the right to many things that living together does not. It gives them inheritance rights, parental rights, the right to be covered for insurance as a spouse, the right to see a loved one in the hospital and make medical decisions for them in an emergency. It allows them to be joined in marriage, a marriage based on love and not a biblical belief. How they live their personal lives has no impact whatsoever on the people who want to deny them these rights. Our laws in this country are not based on a Bible! Keep your religious prejudices out of the legal system.
7
I rarely agree with conservatives, but find myself sympathetic to Jindal's position. Religion is not an excuse to violate others' rights, but what rights are at stake here? The right to use a particular baker, a particular wedding photographer? If the business is not a monopoly, how burdensome is it to shop elsewhere?
Pointedly refusing to do business with someone is an important form of expression. We permit expression of even abhorrent views. We counter by expressing better views, including by refusing business to bigots.
At stake here is not freedom of religion, but freedom of expression.
Pointedly refusing to do business with someone is an important form of expression. We permit expression of even abhorrent views. We counter by expressing better views, including by refusing business to bigots.
At stake here is not freedom of religion, but freedom of expression.
1
If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one.
7
Charitably, this is an intellectually confused argument, and hardly much of a think-piece. What is never really explained by conservatives like Bobby Jindal is how corporations are entities with religious liberties. To be sure, corporations are important legal entities that allow people to join together to produce important goods and services, but that in no way imbues them with religious convictions apart from those held by the majority owner. No where does Jindal explain from where this constitutional right for corporations arises.
Even if corporations have religious rights, Jindal doesn't explain why, when choosing to act in the stream of commerce, the Constitution should allow corporate entities to discriminate, which surely denying service to same-sex couples is. Nor does Jindal explain how to constitutionally cabin such discrimination to same-sex marriage ceremonies. Why wouldn't it also permit discrimination to non-Christian ceremonies? Or other forms of discrimination?
And while championing the freedoms of businesses, Jindal rejects business activism opposing to the type of discrimination that Jindal supports. Statements about liberals in the boardroom and Hollywood are intellectually empty calls to conservatives.
As for Jindal's record in Louisiana, that speaks for itself. As the U.S. economy recovers and states around the country are seeking budget deficits fall, Louisiana finds itself with large and growing budget problems, not unlike New Jersey and Kansas.
Even if corporations have religious rights, Jindal doesn't explain why, when choosing to act in the stream of commerce, the Constitution should allow corporate entities to discriminate, which surely denying service to same-sex couples is. Nor does Jindal explain how to constitutionally cabin such discrimination to same-sex marriage ceremonies. Why wouldn't it also permit discrimination to non-Christian ceremonies? Or other forms of discrimination?
And while championing the freedoms of businesses, Jindal rejects business activism opposing to the type of discrimination that Jindal supports. Statements about liberals in the boardroom and Hollywood are intellectually empty calls to conservatives.
As for Jindal's record in Louisiana, that speaks for itself. As the U.S. economy recovers and states around the country are seeking budget deficits fall, Louisiana finds itself with large and growing budget problems, not unlike New Jersey and Kansas.
8
Makes perfect sense for a guy who believes in exorcisms. Can you imagine this man, or any of the other Republican candidates, making Supreme Court appointments? Short of Hilary murdering someone, I will support her to the end as she has the best chance of any Democrat of being elected. If this Op-Ed doesn't prove the point, nothing will. It's the Supreme Court stupid.
6
Dear Governor,
Who says you have a right to religious freedom if it infringes on the rights of others?
The first amendment of the constitution says: "Congress shall make no laws respecting an established religion..." When you establish a religion, or more broadly any or all religions as state religions are you not excluding all those who don't wish to be catholic or protestant?
Remember, the founding fathers had seen religious conflicts in the colonies, e.g. between citizens of Maryland and Virginia and in Massachusetts. In the first amendment the fathers are awarding free speech, not religious freedom. As stated, they were against state religion, which you promote in your article.
Who says you have a right to religious freedom if it infringes on the rights of others?
The first amendment of the constitution says: "Congress shall make no laws respecting an established religion..." When you establish a religion, or more broadly any or all religions as state religions are you not excluding all those who don't wish to be catholic or protestant?
Remember, the founding fathers had seen religious conflicts in the colonies, e.g. between citizens of Maryland and Virginia and in Massachusetts. In the first amendment the fathers are awarding free speech, not religious freedom. As stated, they were against state religion, which you promote in your article.
5
"Radical left"? "Radical liberals"? But "conservatives" -- no preceding adjective. So here are some Jindal left out: "extremist," "bigoted," "homophobic," "neanderthal," "wing-nut." JIndal's use of "radical" is the same old sorry song from the south. Used to be race-baiting. Now it's gay baiting.
6
Bobby, just calm down a sec. Take a swig of water and everything will be okay.
2
It's amusing to see the radical Republicans like Jindal alienating Big Business.
5
Mr. Jindal's words add nothing to the debate. Bigotry is bigotry. This has nothing to do with religious liberty. What he does in the privacy of his prayers is fine with me as long as he doesn't force it upon me and my husband. Yes, we are a gay married couple.
5
I believe in freedom, and for that very reason I oppose these ludicrous religious freedom acts. Now, before you assume that I'm just another big-city liberal, you should know that I was raised in the semi-rural heartland in an evangelical minister's household and born again at the age of 5 (I have a signed document to prove it). So, I know all about religious freedom and its relationship to government; I also know about looking under rocks for the Anti-Christ. You, sir, are looking under rocks. And while we're being honest, your stance actually underlines something far more insidious than a few leftists attempting to defend their constitutional right to freedom from religious oppression; that government is controlled by commercial interests, not constitutional ones. Wake up.
5
The headline might as well read: "Bobby Jindal: I'm Holding Firm Against Logic"
Citing "liberty" as an excuse for one group to curtail the freedoms of another group is an absurdity that sounds like something George Orwell would have dreamed up.
Citing "liberty" as an excuse for one group to curtail the freedoms of another group is an absurdity that sounds like something George Orwell would have dreamed up.
5
It's really simple.
Democracy allows a politician's constituents to vote every two or four years.
Capitalism allows a much broader group of constituents to vote with their wallets every day.
Governor, I believe you're about to hear a loud and clear message from this second group of voters. Rather than pandering to the "radical left," I would suggest they're listening to their own constituents (aka customers).
Democracy allows a politician's constituents to vote every two or four years.
Capitalism allows a much broader group of constituents to vote with their wallets every day.
Governor, I believe you're about to hear a loud and clear message from this second group of voters. Rather than pandering to the "radical left," I would suggest they're listening to their own constituents (aka customers).
4
On it's face this seems bizarre as Jindal is not a stupid man. I assume therefore that it's a move geared toward The Personal Advancement of Bobby Jindal rather than anything sensible. He probably sees his political future fading at this point and is nailing down his bona fides so he can pull down a paycheck as a Faux News talking head.
8
My daughter lives in New Orleans and has built a happy, productive live there.
She and her girlfriend would like to marry and stay. but I don't like to think they're living in a state that has a separate water fountain for them. I know my daughters said if the SCOTUS decision doesn't go well, she doesn't think they cay stay. They've built a nice life in Louisiana, but after reading this, maybe she's right.
She and her girlfriend would like to marry and stay. but I don't like to think they're living in a state that has a separate water fountain for them. I know my daughters said if the SCOTUS decision doesn't go well, she doesn't think they cay stay. They've built a nice life in Louisiana, but after reading this, maybe she's right.
12
Mr. Jindal,
Your proposal would allow muslim store owners to refuse service to Christians, since they are considered infidels by some; it would also allow women not to be served in some orthodox jewish and muslim stores because women are considered unclean by others. And until recently, it would have allowed businesses to shun people of your own heritage. Thus, I perceive the pluralism you advocate for as deeply superficial, and believe that, in the long run, it would sow the rifts that would dismantle a civil society.
Furthermore, if women, gays, christians, and everyone else, pay the taxes that help maintain the road, sewage, and electricity that run businesses, how could you tell some people that they can't be served?
Your proposal would allow muslim store owners to refuse service to Christians, since they are considered infidels by some; it would also allow women not to be served in some orthodox jewish and muslim stores because women are considered unclean by others. And until recently, it would have allowed businesses to shun people of your own heritage. Thus, I perceive the pluralism you advocate for as deeply superficial, and believe that, in the long run, it would sow the rifts that would dismantle a civil society.
Furthermore, if women, gays, christians, and everyone else, pay the taxes that help maintain the road, sewage, and electricity that run businesses, how could you tell some people that they can't be served?
12
Individuals have freedom of religion. Businesses do not. Businesses are an entity that has no heart, no lungs, no brain. Historically, they have never had the right to vote - although some crazy people seem to be headed that way by giving corporations freedom of "speech" (money), which is to say that the owners have the ability to circumvent what few campaign finance laws remain.
As was pointed out yesterday if a human being has a job that he cannot in good "faith" perform because of his religion, he needs to resign and get a new job. But don't try to tell me a business has any religious inclinations other than those of the people that control it; if they are against gay marriage, that business should not have the choice to refuse service to anyone based upon the prejudices and bigotry of the owners.
As was pointed out yesterday if a human being has a job that he cannot in good "faith" perform because of his religion, he needs to resign and get a new job. But don't try to tell me a business has any religious inclinations other than those of the people that control it; if they are against gay marriage, that business should not have the choice to refuse service to anyone based upon the prejudices and bigotry of the owners.
6
Governor Jindal is a leader in the Republican Party as are the Governors of Indiana and Arkansas. Is this the party you want in charge of the Federal government? Then do something about it.
After the Supreme Court decides in favor of allowing marriage freedoms for all, these Republican led states will continue to fight to discriminate against gay people, just as they act to discriminate against poor and elderly voters with ID laws.
Governor Jindal has given corporations a clear message, stay out of Louisiana. I hope they hear that message and abide by it.
After the Supreme Court decides in favor of allowing marriage freedoms for all, these Republican led states will continue to fight to discriminate against gay people, just as they act to discriminate against poor and elderly voters with ID laws.
Governor Jindal has given corporations a clear message, stay out of Louisiana. I hope they hear that message and abide by it.
8
Jindal just wants to make it legal to express his religions hatreds in public without discrimination. Why not also extend that to Jews? Or green eyed people? Or left-handed people. Jindal wants to make it legal to kill Amalek but the Rabbis say it would be murder to kill an Amalek since we have no idea who an Amalek would be. Jindal should perform some self-examination.
5
Dear Governor Jindal:
Please be advised that the United States of America is not a Theocracy. Nor should it be.
Sincerely Yours,
The Sane People
Please be advised that the United States of America is not a Theocracy. Nor should it be.
Sincerely Yours,
The Sane People
17
Jindal just managed to do things simultaneously, appeal to social conservatives and attack crony capitalism, i.e. exactly the kind of crony capitalism that we see on full display with the Clintons. Almost certainly, he believes what he writes. But from a purely political point of view, it was a brilliant stroke and will soon move him into the top tier of Republican candidates. Since gay marriage will eventually get entangled with Roe v. Wade, and no candidate wins the Republican nomination supporting abortion, this tells me that the race will be on the right, with both Jindal and Cruz formidable players. Stunning.
Mr. Jindal,
If you're so keen on religious liberty, how about refusing every cent of the evil federal government's subsidies doled out to churches that are complaining about having to respect gays' (etc) rights?
Why stop there? Put your money where your mouth is; advise the Lousiana Catholic Church lobby in favour of a tax similar to Germany's 'Kirchensteuer'.
It may also be a good start in dispeling your reputation as a hypocrite.
If you're so keen on religious liberty, how about refusing every cent of the evil federal government's subsidies doled out to churches that are complaining about having to respect gays' (etc) rights?
Why stop there? Put your money where your mouth is; advise the Lousiana Catholic Church lobby in favour of a tax similar to Germany's 'Kirchensteuer'.
It may also be a good start in dispeling your reputation as a hypocrite.
6
Jindal firmly believes that it is a religious act to sell gasoline to somebody who might be traveling to a same sex marriage; that it is a religious act for a farmer o grow wheat that is used in the wedding cake to celebrate a same sex marriage, and that it is a religious act for a hotel to deny a room at the inn to a same sex couple on their honeymoon.
This isn't religious freedom, it is insanity.
This isn't religious freedom, it is insanity.
3
One does not have to look beyond cultural, religious and political leanings to understand Jindal's position.
Piyush 'Bobby' Jindal was born into an Indian/Hindu culture where arranged heterosexual marriages are the norm.
In College, he converted to Roman Catholicism. (No tolerance for gay marriage there.)
He has political hopes of becoming more than the Governor of Louisiana -- which makes playing to the national Republican base mandatory.
He's term-limited out of office in Louisiana at the end of the year -- so presumably doesn't much care what happens to business in Louisiana if he can advance his national aspirations.
Piyush 'Bobby' Jindal was born into an Indian/Hindu culture where arranged heterosexual marriages are the norm.
In College, he converted to Roman Catholicism. (No tolerance for gay marriage there.)
He has political hopes of becoming more than the Governor of Louisiana -- which makes playing to the national Republican base mandatory.
He's term-limited out of office in Louisiana at the end of the year -- so presumably doesn't much care what happens to business in Louisiana if he can advance his national aspirations.
9
Religious liberty doesn't allow one strain of religion to pick and choose from their 'good' book whatever fits into their antiquated world view, nor does it allow that a minority of the 'deeply' religious impose their will onto others.
Our Founders would be rolling over in their graves when reading how the extreme right is interpreting both the 1rst and 2nd Amendment in the Constitution.
And yes, Gov. Jindal, when comparing to how far to the arch-right you and your party has marched in lockstep since President Obama won the election the first time around, count me as one of those 'radical liberals'. In any other advanced country of the world, though, I would be considered being to the left of center in the political spectrum.
Our Founders would be rolling over in their graves when reading how the extreme right is interpreting both the 1rst and 2nd Amendment in the Constitution.
And yes, Gov. Jindal, when comparing to how far to the arch-right you and your party has marched in lockstep since President Obama won the election the first time around, count me as one of those 'radical liberals'. In any other advanced country of the world, though, I would be considered being to the left of center in the political spectrum.
9
This piece is so full of straw men, it's like army of stunt doubles for a remake of The Wizard of Oz. Liberals, corporations, and gays - oh my!
I fail to see any need at all for these "religious freedom" bills. They are blatantly unconstitutional to the extent that they're intended to apply to any governmental entity, since government action is governed by state and federal constitutional law. They don't appear to affect the freedom to enter into contracts or conduct business that already exists for private citizens. Look like simple red meat for the political base.
Restrictive private organizations have long been with us. Think about restrictive country clubs, or the Boy Scouts of America. They're private entities, and they're legally free to discriminate against anyone they choose.
Also, the rest of us are also free to choose not to do business with them, to mock them, and to otherwise make our opinions known by words and dollars. Frankly, I want more pieces by people like Gov. Jindal. I want all of the bigots to declare themselves so I know who they are.
I fail to see any need at all for these "religious freedom" bills. They are blatantly unconstitutional to the extent that they're intended to apply to any governmental entity, since government action is governed by state and federal constitutional law. They don't appear to affect the freedom to enter into contracts or conduct business that already exists for private citizens. Look like simple red meat for the political base.
Restrictive private organizations have long been with us. Think about restrictive country clubs, or the Boy Scouts of America. They're private entities, and they're legally free to discriminate against anyone they choose.
Also, the rest of us are also free to choose not to do business with them, to mock them, and to otherwise make our opinions known by words and dollars. Frankly, I want more pieces by people like Gov. Jindal. I want all of the bigots to declare themselves so I know who they are.
5
Gov. Jindal brings new examples of the ostrich syndrome. While acknowledging that change is occurring, much too rapidly for his ilk, he pursue faulty logic in his now-typical rant. Religious freedom is not at jeopardy in our nation. He and all his fundamentalist christians have the right to worship as they please. But when I read of a Republican politician who wants to make church attendance mandatory, I recognize how off-balance our country has become and the GLBT push for equality seems to be major cause. I do recall when Brown vs Board of Education made school segregation illegal, my Mississippi Southern Baptist mother declared it the end of our nation, that "God separated the races," and that her great-grandmother's 200 slaves, when freed by that dreadful Mr. Lincoln, gathered round her colonnaded front veranda, crying, "Oh, Miss Betty, where will we go?" there wasn't a reply, I realized my mother would never overcome her childhood inbred bigotry. She didn't live to witness our first African-American president, sadly. But slavery, like the definition of marriage had also been around for centuries; that doesn't make it right. And some arbitrary definition of an institution that is failing heterosexuals---more and more babies are being born out of wedlock, no father around, and that's not the fault of GLBT gaining equality. Jindal's frequent use of "radical left," or declaiming "onerous impulses of government" as though equality is onerous?
10
Okay then. Ensure that LGBT citizens will be protected from discrimination in your state. Sign anti-discrimination laws protecting us into law in your state. If you don't do that then your words are meaningless drivel.
10
No one expects Governor Jindal to evolve on this issue so this isn't really news. It's off topic but how about Jindal loosen his stance on this issue: Give Glenn Ford, exonerated after service 30 years for a murder he didn't commit, the measly $330K your state is refusing to pay. He suffered 30 years on death row and now is dying. And how about you have the former prosecutor - Marty Stroud - charged with 2nd degree murder and reckless endangerment for the 5 murders resultant of his malicious prosecution of the wrong man. Stroud admitted being overzealous and ignoring evidence, and choosing and all-white jury to ensure conviction. Details here: http://nydn.us/1PccQE7.
12
Glad to see that Bobby Jindal "believes in freedom, " just as I do: the freedom not to visit a state that thinks that discrimination is OK, the freedom not to shop in stores that think it's OK - you get the picture.
15
For someone with Presidential ambitions Bobby Jindal does nothing to bridge divides in his Op-Ed piece. His use of language with charged words such as “left wing” and “radical liberals” speak only separation and marginalization which is the overall key to his thinking, and focuses him, not on an inclusive future, but on the old code words of a failed conservative agenda. Certainly not very presidential!
I am always struck by people who espouse Mr. Jindal’s philosophy who like us to think we live in some long gone “Little House on the Prairie” world where all we need is a simple life, where Mom cooks around the hearth and Dad tends the field and we all “simply allow free exercise of religion”. Except this simple prairie world has long disappeared along with our wiping out of most the Native American culture. Now we are met with schemes from political and religious leaders as to how to best keep the gays, lesbians, and transgender from perverting our simple homespun life, where religion is front and center.
I think we can take comfort in the fact that Bobby Jindal has virtually no chance of ever being nominated or elected president, despite his ambitions. Perhaps he should spend his time protecting society from others that might limit the vast freedoms in Louisiana. Vampires perhaps? Far more dangerous than those LGBT folks. What say you Mr. Lestat?
I am always struck by people who espouse Mr. Jindal’s philosophy who like us to think we live in some long gone “Little House on the Prairie” world where all we need is a simple life, where Mom cooks around the hearth and Dad tends the field and we all “simply allow free exercise of religion”. Except this simple prairie world has long disappeared along with our wiping out of most the Native American culture. Now we are met with schemes from political and religious leaders as to how to best keep the gays, lesbians, and transgender from perverting our simple homespun life, where religion is front and center.
I think we can take comfort in the fact that Bobby Jindal has virtually no chance of ever being nominated or elected president, despite his ambitions. Perhaps he should spend his time protecting society from others that might limit the vast freedoms in Louisiana. Vampires perhaps? Far more dangerous than those LGBT folks. What say you Mr. Lestat?
10
If Mr. Jindal believes a business can deny serving a customer because of the religious beliefs of the business owner, does he also believe, as governor of the state of Louisiana, that he can turn a citizen away from his/her legal rights based on his religious beliefs?
Is Louisiana now a theocracy?
Is Louisiana now a theocracy?
14
Dear Gov. Jindal -- One man's "bullying" is another man's expression of conscience.
6
You are confusing religious liberty with the right to use your values to deny other people their constitutional rights. And perhaps you have never heard of the separation of church and state.
15
Love the accompanying photo: Gov. Bobby Jindal with his lovely family caught in the act of prayer. Proof that the governor is a good, pious, conservative who only wants what is best for his political career...er, I mean, the people in the great state of Louisiana.
Since actually governing would require sometimes making decisions that go against conservative orthodoxy, it is incumbent upon the governor to rely on manipulative political ploys. What conservative would oppose this man after seeing a picture of him praying with his family while simultaneously vowing to hold firm against gay marriage? Kinda brings a tear to the eye, while I forget all about Louisiana's floundering economy.
Since actually governing would require sometimes making decisions that go against conservative orthodoxy, it is incumbent upon the governor to rely on manipulative political ploys. What conservative would oppose this man after seeing a picture of him praying with his family while simultaneously vowing to hold firm against gay marriage? Kinda brings a tear to the eye, while I forget all about Louisiana's floundering economy.
17
The lines that supporters of so-called "religious liberty" love to say is "What evidence is there of any harm being caused to gay couples if a bakery or florist shop refuses their business on religious grounds? There are plenty of other bakeries and florist shops that would welcome their business."
1
Did Jim Crow laws ever apply to the small number of Asians living in the American South?
9
They applied to my dad/a dark skinned man from India. A professor from the North who often had business in the South. Polished/educated, etc. In the 50s, he stayed at colored only hotels/ate at colored only facilities. Hey Bobby, are you reading this!
1
You know, if you took Gov. Jindal's op-ed and replaced the words "same-sex marriage" with "rights for colored people," you wouldn't be able to distinguish it from an op-ed written by a southern white supremacist a half century ago.
You know, the same people who wanted to deny people of color (like Gov. Jindal) their civil liberties. You would think Gov. Jindal would see the irony in that.
You know, the same people who wanted to deny people of color (like Gov. Jindal) their civil liberties. You would think Gov. Jindal would see the irony in that.
13
One thing I have noticed reading liberal posts here and elsewhere is that liberals are open minded, tolerant, and accepting as long you believe exactly the same way they do. If you disagree with a liberal or liberals and their party line, you are a homophobic, sexist, misogynistic, racist, bigoted, biased, intolerant, and not quite human.
2
Give us a break. So conservatives and Republicans are tolerant angels?
1
No, not at all. Come back and discuss this if you have a gay friend/sister/brother/child. Get over yourself. HATE IS HATE!
1
Actually, I think many liberals (like myself) think it's ok for people to disagree with me. However, when that disagreement involves creating a separate set of rights and responsibilities, then it becomes true bigotry. That may be a nuanced view to someone without intellectual heft, but it's bigotry nonetheless.
9
Fantastic news that you're holding firm, Bobby. Hang on tightly...while the rest of the world passes you by. I'm comforted by the thought that your strongly-held views makes it just that much more likely that we'll, thankfully, never see you as our president.
13
I've cancelled my reservations for summer vacation in Louisiana. It's a small gesture. But, one that I feel better about. New Orleans.. I love ya. Vote in a new Governor, I'll come back.
17
Gov Jindal has disqualified himself as a potential Presidential candidate. His backward bigoted mindset will be obvious if he attempts any higher office. Otherwise, he is probably a nice fella and a good family man--where he will no doubt be spending more time.
8
This may come as a surprise to you Mr. Jindal, but these companies have employees who are gay. It may also surprise you to know that many people who are gay are artistic, extremely intelligent, and just the kind of employees businesses want. There is no war against religion. It is the other way around. Religion is warring against people who are born different. They did not choose this and they should not be discriminated against or put down because of it. If you want to continue to believe you are right, go ahead, but I see your children are very young. What will you do if one of them turns out to be gay? Your attitude is reprehensible. Louisiana will pay financially. I am originally from Indiana and I am glad they were struck down. Bullying? You and your ilk are very good at it.
29
"THE debate over religious liberty in America"
The debate is not over religious liberty. It is over equal access to the public sphere.
The debate is not over religious liberty. It is over equal access to the public sphere.
16
One question - were you among those who condemned IBM for having sold the Nazi's the machines necessary to count the Jews preparatory to shipping them off? If so, how do you justify your wish that they did not have "equal access to the public sphere"?
Where does one draw the line between bias and conscience when running a business?
Where does one draw the line between bias and conscience when running a business?
No surprise that Bobby Jindal would support the ignorant misguided views of the right wing base of his party. He does want to run for president, doesn't he?
The founders of ths great country strived to separate church and state and the crass politicians catering to the Republican right want to turn our goverment into a theocracy while talking about freedom. The only freedom being defended by Mr. Jindal is the freedom to discriiminate.
The founders of ths great country strived to separate church and state and the crass politicians catering to the Republican right want to turn our goverment into a theocracy while talking about freedom. The only freedom being defended by Mr. Jindal is the freedom to discriiminate.
7
Governor Jindal-
How terribly disappointing to read your specious arguments about "religious freedom." Surely you are aware that not that long ago the same Bible upon which you base your arguments was used to maintain slavery and, later, to argue against inter-racial marriage. It's reminiscent of your antebellum predecessors proudly exclaiming: "I'm holding firm against emancipation!"
I am a straight man, married for 37 years, but I recognize the civil rights of my gay brothers and sisters and hope that you soon will as well.
In the meantime, my wife and I have decided to cancel a planned trip to visit a city we've heard so much about -- New Orleans. If your embarrassing defense of discrimination is representative of your constituents, I'm not sure we'd feel comfortable.
I do hope you can pray about this and also seek the counsel of some of your LGBTQ constituents. I think by speaking with them you will realize they, too, are God's children.
How terribly disappointing to read your specious arguments about "religious freedom." Surely you are aware that not that long ago the same Bible upon which you base your arguments was used to maintain slavery and, later, to argue against inter-racial marriage. It's reminiscent of your antebellum predecessors proudly exclaiming: "I'm holding firm against emancipation!"
I am a straight man, married for 37 years, but I recognize the civil rights of my gay brothers and sisters and hope that you soon will as well.
In the meantime, my wife and I have decided to cancel a planned trip to visit a city we've heard so much about -- New Orleans. If your embarrassing defense of discrimination is representative of your constituents, I'm not sure we'd feel comfortable.
I do hope you can pray about this and also seek the counsel of some of your LGBTQ constituents. I think by speaking with them you will realize they, too, are God's children.
14
Private buisnesses are free to do whatever they want and refuse whoever they want; it might not be right but it is their right to do so. But if we truly are living in a secular democracy, which is founded on separation of Church and State, governements and politicians have absolutely no right to support or pass any legislation to descriminate against individuals based on their sexual orientation or religious beliefs or interfere in any way with any citizen's right to self-determination. You can't put "State" and "Private Buisness" in the same category, which makes your whole argument pointless.
4
As a life-long resident of Louisiana, let me thank our Governor for taking the time out of his hectic schedule to write this piece on a topic that will do absolutely nothing to help with our estimated near $1.6 billion dollar deficit problem facing us for next year. LSU, my alma mater and flag-ship University of Louisiana, indicated that they drafted a piece about the fact that they might have to file for financial exigency or the equivalent of bankruptcy for a University to survive. I'm more concerned about that piece and it's impact for the State of writing than Jindal's continued push for a presidential bid that at this point seems laughable.
I'm not here to state anything regarding Jindal's view on Gay Marriage as it is way further down the list of my concerns as a Louisiana tax payer, voter, husband, father, etc. I'd like to think our Governor could see where his priorities should be, but he's been focused on Bobby Jindal since elected rather than his state.
I'm not here to state anything regarding Jindal's view on Gay Marriage as it is way further down the list of my concerns as a Louisiana tax payer, voter, husband, father, etc. I'd like to think our Governor could see where his priorities should be, but he's been focused on Bobby Jindal since elected rather than his state.
24
Thanks, Governor Jindal. You've simply reinforced my logical reasoning to NEVER spend a single dime of my money in Louisiana. Until they are rid of you, they'll be missing me. Because I choose not to patronize states that supports discrimination against a class of people, which is unconstitutional.
13
By all means hold fast. But Adam and Steve are getting married.
9
I'm a devout atheist, but at this moment I'm praying with all my might that the Republicans are dumb enough to nominate Bobby Jindal as their standard-bearer in the 2016 presidential election.
27
I don't understand his logic. What about the freedom of two adults who are in love and want to be married but might be same sex? Don't criminalize it. Seperation of church and state.. Also what does that mean?
5
The whole time Gov. Jindal was writing this, he was thinking to himself, "Man, this argument would be so much easier if 'separate but equal' weren't already taken."
14
Just a few weeks ago, for the first time, I had the pleasure of attending the gay wedding of two great friends. It was truly a joyous occasion. My thoughts as I watched them exchange their vows was, 'how could anyone say that these two beautiful ladies should not have their relationship legally recognized?' If that makes me a left wing radical/ideologue, so be it. Obviously Gov. Jindal has no clue about civil rights and equality in our country. I will thank Gov. Jindal for helping me decide where to vacation this year. New Orleans was among the top choices, NOT any more.
10
Where to start with Jindal's mess of illogic and misrepresentation? First, discrimination is not okay just because your religion says it is. If a musician can refuse to perform at a gay wedding, can he refuse to perform at a Jewish one? Second, the idea that liberals want to tax and regulate businesses "out of existence" is so stupid it hardly bears comment. Even liberals like to have jobs, own businesses and buy products and services businesses produce. What kind of dopy constituency is Jindal talking to anyway?
12
Good to see your opinion, Mr. Jindal. Now go about YOUR personal business, and the rest of the country will go about its business. No one will force you to marry a man.
12
If Mr. Jindahl's beliefs were in defense of Christians then he should also demand that people be able to deny services to divorced people who wish to marry. Jesus spoke on the subject in two gospels yet he never spoke about homosexuality. “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10) Mr. Jindahl is promoting bigotry not religious freedom.
6
"Liberals have decided that if they can’t win at the ballot box, they will win in the boardroom. "
Sounds like a market-based solution right out of the Republican platform.
Sounds like a market-based solution right out of the Republican platform.
14
It seems like Bobby Jindal does not know the meaning of the phrase "Live, and let live." From his opinion piece, you would think that gay marriages caused considerable harm to those who don't accept them.
7
I will avoid any travel to New Orleans and the entire state of Louisiana so as not to support this intolerance in any way.
11
You go, Bobby! Just don't be surprised when corporations choose not to do business in your state or when no one other than right wing Republican primary voters support your ambition to be president.
11
It's time to stop conflating homosexual "marriage" with arguments about whether homosexuality is a choice or judging people for whom they are sexually attracted to. Just because I believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman does not mean that I think homosexuals chose to be homosexual, nor does it mean that I hate homosexuals, but the leftists love to make that assumption.
I think same-sex attraction is not a choice, however, I think that environment can affect whether or not one develops such an attraction. I also believe that people with same-sex attraction have the choice as to whether or not to engage in homosexual sex acts, and I believe that I should have the right to treat people differently on the basis of what I perceive to be bad behavior. I would never serve a wife beater in my store; I won't serve a sodomite. I willl serve both if I am not aware of their behavior. Same-sex marriage implies same-sex sex acts. Sorry, I don't approve of your behavior.
I think same-sex attraction is not a choice, however, I think that environment can affect whether or not one develops such an attraction. I also believe that people with same-sex attraction have the choice as to whether or not to engage in homosexual sex acts, and I believe that I should have the right to treat people differently on the basis of what I perceive to be bad behavior. I would never serve a wife beater in my store; I won't serve a sodomite. I willl serve both if I am not aware of their behavior. Same-sex marriage implies same-sex sex acts. Sorry, I don't approve of your behavior.
1
No one cares what you believe so believe anything you want. Believe in pink unicorns if you like. If you get caught discriminating against people and breaking the law, your business will be sued into oblivion.
I believe that mean spirited, judgmental bigots deserve to go out of business.
I believe that mean spirited, judgmental bigots deserve to go out of business.
2
You, as an INDIVIDUAL, may be able to treat people differently, as wrong as that may be. As a person or business offering services to the public generally, you DON'T have that "right." In the same way, a hotel can't refuse accommodations to Jewish people, gay people, or others with whom the desk clerk (or the owner) doesn't agree or believes to be engaging in "bad behavior." We're in the 21st Century now. Check a calendar.
2
1 John 3:17-18
But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.
How many of these good Christian business people live the above bit of the Gospel? Jesus has much more to say about caring for the poor and defenseless. He has nothing to say about one man-one woman marriage.
The Good Samaritan cared for a man that orthodox believers passed by. Jesus was not on the side of indifference in the name of religion.
So when I see more of these folks protecting their religious freedom living that religion, I'll give another look at behavior that now seems exclusive in a way that would be abhorrent to Jesus and has no justification in the Gospels.
Jesus never said it was easy. He challenged received wisdom and cherished beliefs. And he paid the ultimate price. There are many, many lessons to be learned and lived and cherished in his life and teachings.
But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.
How many of these good Christian business people live the above bit of the Gospel? Jesus has much more to say about caring for the poor and defenseless. He has nothing to say about one man-one woman marriage.
The Good Samaritan cared for a man that orthodox believers passed by. Jesus was not on the side of indifference in the name of religion.
So when I see more of these folks protecting their religious freedom living that religion, I'll give another look at behavior that now seems exclusive in a way that would be abhorrent to Jesus and has no justification in the Gospels.
Jesus never said it was easy. He challenged received wisdom and cherished beliefs. And he paid the ultimate price. There are many, many lessons to be learned and lived and cherished in his life and teachings.
4
The first amendment enshrines religious liberty. It does not enshrine the right to bigotry in the name of religious freedom.
If Bobby Jindal really respected other people's religious beliefs, he would not be so zealous in persecuting those who would provide unrestricted reproductive choice, and the women whose needs they serve. Instead, he would force his religious views down all their throats. Freedom to discriminate against gays -- yes. Freedom for women who don't believe fourth-century Catholic dogma is medical science -- no.
Jindal a right wingnut hypocrite pandering to a salivating base, and should be repudiated by those who truly believe in freedom.
And before you respond with, "It's a child, not a choice," it's never a child until the woman MAKES her choice.
If Bobby Jindal really respected other people's religious beliefs, he would not be so zealous in persecuting those who would provide unrestricted reproductive choice, and the women whose needs they serve. Instead, he would force his religious views down all their throats. Freedom to discriminate against gays -- yes. Freedom for women who don't believe fourth-century Catholic dogma is medical science -- no.
Jindal a right wingnut hypocrite pandering to a salivating base, and should be repudiated by those who truly believe in freedom.
And before you respond with, "It's a child, not a choice," it's never a child until the woman MAKES her choice.
6
Beautifully put, Bobby Jindal. Why should rights be exclusive only to those who are proponents of same-sex marriage? The constant victimization displayed by LGBTs is becoming nauseating. We ALL have rights- and so if ANY American wishes to peacefully and non-violently demonstrate dissent for this 'condition' through every thread of their life- their business, their home, their church- they should very well be allotted the "right." I am sick and tired of the constant escalation of this debate into a purely one-sided pity party for the legions of LGBTs who use the term "rights" when they do not get their own way. #enoughnow #stopthekickingandscreaming
2
Tricia - interestingly this entire article talks about how the big bad left is victimizing religious people. Looks like the victim mentality exists on both sides.
1
No, not actually. No one is taking away anyone's religious freedom. Mr. Jindal is pandering to the most ignorant of his followers. He seems to forget that 50 years ago, he would have been considered colored and relegated to colored only status. Mr. Jindal is the driver of the clown car this week, and his article assures he will never, ever be our president. ( I know of what I speak -my father, a Catholic and from India traveled the South in the 50s -always, always had to use colored facilities!) The End!
2
In other news from the "Great State of Louisiana" state universities are considering declaring a form of bankruptcy because Gov. Jindal and his fellow repubs will not fund education. Priorities?
13
An opinion from a hack who is running Louisiana into the ground and a hypocrite whose political stances change as quickly as the most recent poll. It is healthy to debate such topics but at least choose someone whom I can respectfully disagree with.
10
The mentality of thinking that you have the freedom to make a portion of our society less free is baffling to me. The whining from those of the religious right who feel that they are being victimized by the very people they seek to oppress is tiresome. The governor's prejudice and homophobia is too large to be hidden behind a bible.
16
I used to like the words "freedom" and "liberty," but now when I read them - especially in diatribes like this - they ring with negative connotations. Sad.
12
Who needs Super Bowls and other major sports events in New Orleans, anyway? I'm sure the New Orleans Convention Bureau is every bit as "principled" as the absurd Jindal. (Has anyone in American political history ever been more self-deluded in his or her fantasies of the White House than Jindal? Politics is a cruel, brutal business, and it's simply a fact that America would never in a million years elect someone as funny looking as Jindal. If you think they're mean to Hillary about her age and looks, which are relatively lovely, can you imagine how they would chop poor Jindal into minces? His parents clearly did a great job of loving him, raising him, sheltering him, and educating him. But the slightly farcical result has been total political blindness when he looks in the mirror.)
5
Can somebody please explain we we need MORE laws to protect religious freedom?
Is it radical to care about other human beings civil rights? Guess I'm a radical.
Is it radical to care about other human beings civil rights? Guess I'm a radical.
10
I also believe the more you try to marginalize people for wherever reason, the more you keep them in your face. If you are a business owner and everuone has equal rights you will ultimately attract your clientele without having to engage in overt didiscriminatory practices. Gay men will take up patronage where they prefer, possibly because they are served by other gay men who will engage them in their own dialect and culture. Same for straight men. Discrimination will do nothing except keep the disfavored culture in a state of activism.
1
Corporation: "Hey can we dump toxic chemicals in your back yard?"
Jindal: "Sure!"
Corporation: "Oh, and can you not discriminate against our employees?"
Jindal: "STOP BULLYING US!!!!!"
Jindal: "Sure!"
Corporation: "Oh, and can you not discriminate against our employees?"
Jindal: "STOP BULLYING US!!!!!"
19
"That’s why we should ensure that musicians, caterers, photographers and others should be immune from government coercion on deeply held religious convictions."
"And others" like doctors, lawyers, teachers, policemen, sanitation workers, social workers, beauticians, librarians, pet groomers, veterinarians, occupational therapists, bus drivers, cashiers, insurance salesmen, electricians, plumbers, internet providers, journalists, butchers, bakers, beggermen and thieves?
"And others" like doctors, lawyers, teachers, policemen, sanitation workers, social workers, beauticians, librarians, pet groomers, veterinarians, occupational therapists, bus drivers, cashiers, insurance salesmen, electricians, plumbers, internet providers, journalists, butchers, bakers, beggermen and thieves?
10
The question I guess is 'what are you free to believe'!
The photograph of the Jindal family and associates that illustrates this blog shows them engaged in the constitutionally-protected act of worship. However, they are doing it in a hall that is dedicated to the formulation of law for people of any or no religion, so it is out of order in that venue.
10
A state marriage license, Bobby, has all the sacredness of a state roofer's license. Ignore the marriages you personally want to, but don't stop some loving couples from having basic rights such as being able to visit each other in the hospital.
7
My head hurts.
Would someone (Mr. Jindal, for a convenient example) please explain in English why refusing to serve an interracial couple in a public accommodation based on "religious beliefs" is illegal, but refusing to serve a lesbian couple is not?
This doesn't even get into the stupidity of endangering all the children in your community through "religious beliefs" about inoculations.
This all tends to resemble brain fever more than any responsible religion of which I'm aware.
Would someone (Mr. Jindal, for a convenient example) please explain in English why refusing to serve an interracial couple in a public accommodation based on "religious beliefs" is illegal, but refusing to serve a lesbian couple is not?
This doesn't even get into the stupidity of endangering all the children in your community through "religious beliefs" about inoculations.
This all tends to resemble brain fever more than any responsible religion of which I'm aware.
13
Jindal has every right to hold and act on his principles. Unfortunately, those principles are wrong: they are wrong morally and wrong rationally. They are also a bit irrational: since Jindal insists on the right to associate or not according to foundational beliefs, he cannot reasonably complain when large corporations and decent people every where decline to associate with religiously inspired, and morally wrong, bigots who are unable to welcome gay couples. Those who do now wish to associate with the immoral ideologies of intolerant Christianity must be, as Jindal insists, free to take their business elsewhere, as they have sensibly indicated they will do. In the meantime, Jindal should be free to refuse to take his business to gay couples and those who rightly support them as loving people setting a healthy example of what marriage can be.
6
This whole "debate" is so much baloney. No one is ever asked to participate in a religious service they don't want to participate in. The fact that a person is present at a religious service does not make him a participant.
I occasionally go to Catholic services with my wife who is Catholic. I am an atheist of Jewish extraction and I sometimes like to keep her company. I do not consider myself to be participating in the services. I am witnessing them.
In the same way, a person who is providing catering services, or flowers, or janitorial services at a religious event is not a participant.
I occasionally go to Catholic services with my wife who is Catholic. I am an atheist of Jewish extraction and I sometimes like to keep her company. I do not consider myself to be participating in the services. I am witnessing them.
In the same way, a person who is providing catering services, or flowers, or janitorial services at a religious event is not a participant.
7
Amazing how it's taken only 250 years for us to forget the difference between "freedom" and "freedom to discriminate". Taking a moment to silently thank our Founding Fathers for the wisdom they put in the Constitution, and crossing my fingers that it holds up as well as it should against religious bullies like this one.
10
The stand of courage in these days 2015 is to stand on GODs word as the
Guide for all we do; to be honest and moral in the fall of strength and honor.
"Being tolerant ” is the respect to a persons hold to their personal convictions,
Is this not freedom ? My delight is in the law of the LORD, and in that law I meditate day and night. Psalms 1:2
I know GODs law is a marriage between A man and A woman Genesis 2:24
Conception of Life is through a man & woman .
Thank you for the bold courage of governor Bobby Jindal
Holding firm against gay marriage .
Guide for all we do; to be honest and moral in the fall of strength and honor.
"Being tolerant ” is the respect to a persons hold to their personal convictions,
Is this not freedom ? My delight is in the law of the LORD, and in that law I meditate day and night. Psalms 1:2
I know GODs law is a marriage between A man and A woman Genesis 2:24
Conception of Life is through a man & woman .
Thank you for the bold courage of governor Bobby Jindal
Holding firm against gay marriage .
2
Sorry - but your "GOD" is not my constitution, but thank you for illustrating Jindal's hypocrisy. Jindal is not lobbying for the right of people to practice their religion. He is lobbying for the right of a particular group of religious people to unconstitutionally impose their religious idea of what a marriage should be on the rest of the population.
2
Madam: Why don't you live your way your way, and permit others to live theirs their way.
I'm a wedding photographer based in Central Oregon still waiting to shoot my first same-sex wedding celebration and can't wait. Saying no to someone would be horrible. Saying no to a southern state like Louisiana would make this Yankee feel good.
5
As a foreigner and a firm Atheist, I view this quite simple. Isn't USA a country based on the principle of separation of church and state? When it is concerned with public policy, there shouldn't be any confusions about this principle.
9
The problem with tilting at windmills is that the windmill doesn't care about anything but the wind that makes it turn. As long as the winds of change keep blowing, it will keep on milling no matter how many times desperate people with irrelevant and dying ideas try blow in the opposite direction. I would feel bad for Jindal and others on the right if their ideas had any merit, but it's clear to most people that they are fighting a lost cause and are going to lose.
4
What Arkansas and Indiana sought to do, governor, is a license to hate. You say, 'Conservatism faces many challenges in today’s America.,' and you wonder why?
7
I love this. "Corporate bullying"- what a concept! This from a man whose political party virtually wrote the book on bullying, and who so strongly supports the bullying of others in the name of "religious freedom" Well, here's an interesting and empirically provable fact: religion is divisive- millennia of history demonstrate that with crystalline clarity. You are either "in" or "out", and if you are out, you are subject to the whims of the "ins". In short, the "outs" are denied *their* religious freedom- at the hands of the "ins".
So, Governor, here's a really novel idea- how about if you and your brethren mind your own business, and really live according to the founder of your own religion. It can be, again, empirically proven that He said absolutely NOTHING about gays or gay marriage. He did, however say something about those two great commandments- you would do well to adhere to both of them, not just your very narrow, proscriptive, legalistic, Pharasaic interpretation of the first one.
As you yourself said in this column: "Those who believe in freedom must stick together: If it’s not freedom for all, it’s not freedom at all." Yeah- how about that...
So, Governor, here's a really novel idea- how about if you and your brethren mind your own business, and really live according to the founder of your own religion. It can be, again, empirically proven that He said absolutely NOTHING about gays or gay marriage. He did, however say something about those two great commandments- you would do well to adhere to both of them, not just your very narrow, proscriptive, legalistic, Pharasaic interpretation of the first one.
As you yourself said in this column: "Those who believe in freedom must stick together: If it’s not freedom for all, it’s not freedom at all." Yeah- how about that...
9
Time for social conservatives to wake up and smell the coffee. Business does not care about your morals. Business only cares about market caps and barring a (often wealthy) segment of the population from their offerings is anathema to good management.
6
First, read opposing view of bill at http://www.notmylouisiana.org/
Second, his approval rating in Louisiana is 26%. This is in a very red state.
You be the judge. Don't be fouled in making your choice for a GOP nominee. Look at his record. It's a disaster for his own state.
Second, his approval rating in Louisiana is 26%. This is in a very red state.
You be the judge. Don't be fouled in making your choice for a GOP nominee. Look at his record. It's a disaster for his own state.
6
Thanks to the NY Times for allowing Gov. Jindal, this so-called freedom loving conservative, to share his weak attempt to persuade corporations to not boycott the great state of Louisiana.
I look forward to seeing what song he sings when Gov. Jindal sees the consequences of the boycotts.
I look forward to seeing what song he sings when Gov. Jindal sees the consequences of the boycotts.
9
Interestingly, here in Columbus we have a mayoral primary (non-partisan) next month. The two black candidates are opposed to gay marriage while the two white candidates support it. I doubt whether this will be the deciding issue for most voters, though.
1
If Bobby Jindal wanted to marry a white woman, some state officials might refuse to grant him a license because their religious beliefs are that inter-racial marriage is against G-d's will. His own state supported that principle not so long ago. Does Jindal really want to return to that kind of hurtful nonsense?
10
But he loves his haters now. He is suffering from stockholm syndrome.
2
I couldn't present a counter argument any better than by using Bobby Jindal's own argument:
"A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us."
If our society is to succeed in upholding the democratic ideals of respectful plurality, then why codify discriminatory protections?
"A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us."
If our society is to succeed in upholding the democratic ideals of respectful plurality, then why codify discriminatory protections?
5
Mr. Jindal's remarks disgust with their blinkered self-righteousness and asinine claims about "religious liberty." No one is telling anyone what they can or cannot believe, or what they can practice in their churches or homes (though God save the children growing up in the corrosive atmosphere of exclusionary "Christianity!). What they are expected to do is treat all members of the public equally in the public square. Surely this is not too hard a concept for even Mr. Jindal to grasp?
Perhaps his next step should be to "protect" the farmers whose wheat is made into flour that may end up in a wedding cake for a same-sex couple? And the millers who made the flour? Or perhaps the construction workers who built the facility where the receptions will be held? Then there are the flower-growers, the people who made the clothes... all "victims" in Mr. Jindal's little world of fear and pandering.
Perhaps his next step should be to "protect" the farmers whose wheat is made into flour that may end up in a wedding cake for a same-sex couple? And the millers who made the flour? Or perhaps the construction workers who built the facility where the receptions will be held? Then there are the flower-growers, the people who made the clothes... all "victims" in Mr. Jindal's little world of fear and pandering.
7
Good for him! Meanwhile, I'm "standing firm" against the idea of the earth revolving around the sun...
6
As said by a middle school student and overheard by me ... Wasn't Jesus's business all about welcoming 'sinners' inside?
Just to be clear, I don't believe it is a sin to be the way god made you.
The next generation is so over ostracizing people based on sexual preference. Therein lies our hope.
Just to be clear, I don't believe it is a sin to be the way god made you.
The next generation is so over ostracizing people based on sexual preference. Therein lies our hope.
2
You hold firm Bobby. Hold firm. Since we are being open about our views and all that - Hold firm buddy, but just FYI - no one really cares! You are a smart guy who is ruining his future by aligning with a bunch of close-minded bigots. You want to make history and you have the required talents for that, but your judgment is taking you the wrong way - you will make history as being on the stupid and ignorant, foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging side of history-makers,
You could have been a contender. But look at you...
You could have been a contender. But look at you...
4
Mr Jindal,
Your parents are immigrants from India that were allowed to enter the US and give their Son the opportunity to reach high office and live the american dream. How dare you forget this fundamental gift that was given to your family by the good people of America.
May I suggest that had your family been exposed to this kind of discrimination when they arrived; we would not be reading your misguided commentary in one of the finest news publications in the world.
Your parents are immigrants from India that were allowed to enter the US and give their Son the opportunity to reach high office and live the american dream. How dare you forget this fundamental gift that was given to your family by the good people of America.
May I suggest that had your family been exposed to this kind of discrimination when they arrived; we would not be reading your misguided commentary in one of the finest news publications in the world.
6
So is Louisiana now willing to support a parent's decision to sexually mutilate their daughter? That's a religious belief. Will it support plural marriage? Stoning to death of disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)? Since when did Evangelical Christianity become the "Good" religion after being cherry picked and all other religions are "Bad"?
10
Gay marriage is listed in the Bible as coming whether Christians accept this or do not. Gay marriages were done in the times of Noah and of Lot. Arkansas did NOT back down from Wal-Mart Inc or Apple Inc. Folks in Arkansas are well-known for not giving up their firmly held beliefs. When desegregation of schools was required by the Supreme Court, these rulings were followed with a plan that seemed these rulings were ignored. No judge who may affect Arkansas would dream of fining an individual Arkansan or closely held Arkansas corporation like happened in New Mexico in violation of the 13th Amendment. The RFRA in Arkansas includes protections against ANY HUMAN on Earth acting under "color of law" or in other words protection against gay person trying to force servitude in violation of the 13th Amendment for any reason at all. Richard C. Bosson's void unconstitutional decision would never be enforced in Arkansas.
So as I look at the picture of Jindal "praying" I wonder what words he's mulling over in his mind:
"Dear Lord, Give me the strength I need to continue denying access to affordable healthcare for hundreds of thousands in Louisiana, please help me stay strong as I destroy our schools, and help me Lord to continue to harden my heart toward all those who are takers and moochers, particularly the very young, the very old and the very disabled and of course, veterans, too..."
Or something like that.
"Dear Lord, Give me the strength I need to continue denying access to affordable healthcare for hundreds of thousands in Louisiana, please help me stay strong as I destroy our schools, and help me Lord to continue to harden my heart toward all those who are takers and moochers, particularly the very young, the very old and the very disabled and of course, veterans, too..."
Or something like that.
11
How can such a well educated man not understand that discrimination is illegal and unamerican?
5
Frankly I hope radical right wing politicians keep talking like this. It will assure we will not have to tolerate them in office much longer.
8
Bobby Jindal doesn't believe gay people have religious liberty.
News Flash! Liberty works for everybody or it works for nobody. If straight people have the right to marry whom they love, so do gay people. That right is not yet recognized by conservatives and fundamentalists.
In order to preserve Freedom of Religion, Government and public policy must be entirely secular. The rights of everyone to engage in commerce -- buying and selling without discrimination -- must be preserved.
Additionally, states should lose the ability to determine who has the right to vote. True liberty would make sure the right to vote is extended to all above a certain age, period.
News Flash! Liberty works for everybody or it works for nobody. If straight people have the right to marry whom they love, so do gay people. That right is not yet recognized by conservatives and fundamentalists.
In order to preserve Freedom of Religion, Government and public policy must be entirely secular. The rights of everyone to engage in commerce -- buying and selling without discrimination -- must be preserved.
Additionally, states should lose the ability to determine who has the right to vote. True liberty would make sure the right to vote is extended to all above a certain age, period.
7
In my view, religious opinions that are frozen in time or arbitrary interpretations (rather than reflecting the key attitudes and consequent behaviours the religion was intended to promote) inevitably become a distortion of the religion they aim to support. I would do business with a gay married person as much as any other; however, I would draw the line at doing business with those who in conversation with me engaged in the kind of gratuitous "flaming" one sees so often from commenters who disagree with articles or other comments.
Mr. Jindal can think anything he wants in private. As a public servant his job is to represent everyone whether he agrees with them or not.
6
So, basically, the governor is advocating for state protection for those that want to discriminate based on sexual orientation? And then calls this the exact opposite that what it is: religious freedom?
The fallacy underlying this text is the following: you do not need to agree on same sex marriage. This allows you the right to not marry someone from the same gender. Just don't!
However, as a member of this society, you need to agree on one of its fundamental covenants: that it is illegal to discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation, or race. Because, in this society, Constitution trumps religion, any discrimination based on religion is overridden by US's Constitution fundamental covenant.
That is, because the US is a secular society, religious freedom is limited by the right to respect others that is enshrined in the Constitution.
If we lived in religious state, it would be the other way around: the Constitution and the respect to others would be limited by religion.
The Governor's fervor in defending abandoning secularism is frightening. The fact that he has a platform with whom this resonates is even more so.
The fallacy underlying this text is the following: you do not need to agree on same sex marriage. This allows you the right to not marry someone from the same gender. Just don't!
However, as a member of this society, you need to agree on one of its fundamental covenants: that it is illegal to discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation, or race. Because, in this society, Constitution trumps religion, any discrimination based on religion is overridden by US's Constitution fundamental covenant.
That is, because the US is a secular society, religious freedom is limited by the right to respect others that is enshrined in the Constitution.
If we lived in religious state, it would be the other way around: the Constitution and the respect to others would be limited by religion.
The Governor's fervor in defending abandoning secularism is frightening. The fact that he has a platform with whom this resonates is even more so.
6
Do businesses and corporations go to church? Do they confess their sins? Do they go to heaven? Businesses are legal entities that receive protection and tax benefits under the law. In return, they are required to follow all kinds of laws and regulations governing commerce and employment.
6
Jindal must realize that the policies he espouses, will apply to somber as well as gay weddings and the same will hold true for both somber and gay funerals.
2
It's amazing to me that the GOP has kept up the "two minutes of hate" for so many decades. Always new targets, I guess.
I keep hoping that the next target exhausts their base, and that their base breaks out into a case of Christian charity.
Free to dream, ain't it?
I keep hoping that the next target exhausts their base, and that their base breaks out into a case of Christian charity.
Free to dream, ain't it?
6
OK, Mr. Jindal, I sincerely wanted to give you a fair chance to expose your views but I couldn't stomach reading your obtuse rant until the end. I stopped when you said that those of us who think religion is "folly" also think making a profit is "vulgar". You couldn't be more wrong.
Liberals, and I proudly count myself as one, like free enterprise but we understand the economy as an aspect of society, not the other way around. We believe business should flourish but that it shouldn't defecate where all of us eat and that's why regulation is important. Louisiana, especially under your leadership, seems to be proud of letting oil companies pollute (defecate) with impunity as a way to maximize profit margins. We believe that's wrong and that's one of the many reasons none of us is ever going to vote for you if you decide to run for President.
Also, on a personal note, I don't think religion is folly. I think it's evil and stupid.
Liberals, and I proudly count myself as one, like free enterprise but we understand the economy as an aspect of society, not the other way around. We believe business should flourish but that it shouldn't defecate where all of us eat and that's why regulation is important. Louisiana, especially under your leadership, seems to be proud of letting oil companies pollute (defecate) with impunity as a way to maximize profit margins. We believe that's wrong and that's one of the many reasons none of us is ever going to vote for you if you decide to run for President.
Also, on a personal note, I don't think religion is folly. I think it's evil and stupid.
11
If we would get two things straight here (pardon the pun):
1) Businesses are not people;
2) By passing laws that favor married people the government is establishing a religious practice and this is in opposition to the establishment clause.
things would be a lot clearer.
Marry anyone you want, but don't expect a tax break for it. Open a business and anyone can come in the door and expect equal treatment, or don't expect me to help pay for the roads leading to your business.
1) Businesses are not people;
2) By passing laws that favor married people the government is establishing a religious practice and this is in opposition to the establishment clause.
things would be a lot clearer.
Marry anyone you want, but don't expect a tax break for it. Open a business and anyone can come in the door and expect equal treatment, or don't expect me to help pay for the roads leading to your business.
5
Jindal is a hero. He is speaking the truth about everything. As millions are mislead to become atheists and choose this lifestyle, Jindal stands with the majority of Christians and the light. Take it for my home state of Louisiana to light the flame of truth. Here in San Francisco people live the atheist life of loneliness, despair, homosexuality, liberal hatred and experimentation with drugs that so many mislead are fighting for. God will light the way.
Isn't it interesting to see that you choose to live in San Francisco rather than Louisiana. I wonder if that has anything to do with the abysmal living conditions that Jindal and his conservative buddies have inflicted on the state.
Newsflash, there are gay people who go to church and there is no such thing as a gay lifestyle.
Newsflash, there are gay people who go to church and there is no such thing as a gay lifestyle.
2
Gov. Jindal:
by all accords, you are a gifted individual.
you have had educational opportunities that very, very few are offered.
however, you are behaving in a disingenuous and damaging manner.
you are pandering to, supporting, and misusing your position of political leadership to subject us to the worst activities of this species.
the Europeans who established our constitutional democratic-republic made it absolutely crystal clear that this new form of self-governance is to be built upon a SEPARATION of church and state.
what part of this language do you chose to not accept?
there is a secondary corollary that accompanies this understanding:
the right of an individual to believe whatever one choses with respect to faith and religion, alone or within groups, ritualized or otherwise.
WITH the following restriction:
such practices cannot violate civil laws and cannot be used to restrict or in any way to discriminate against another individual in the public square.
where would your barricaded society lead us?
how many intolerances would become the new-norm?
would, for example, the practice of polygamy or virginal sacrifice be celebrated?
is there any real, substantive difference between your proposals and the installation of Sharia Law?
why do you wish to drag us back to the 1600s? or earlier?
our citizens need to be reminded that this nation requires first a civil structure--
these repetitious pronouncements are a fundamental function of our elected representatives.
5
Jindal's last paragraph is his most important. This isn't about religious freedom, or virtue, or even the horror that downtrodden conservatives must feel should they stray from Fox, Newsmax, The Blaze, Rush, Sean, Breitbart, etc etc. It's about political power and personal ambition. Social conservatives and business should understand their common interests and back Jindal for President.
3
Let's face it, religion is the choice, not sexual orientation. This is not about "left-wing ideologues" who "shriek" and "bully." It's about simple fairness that all people are treated equal (because we're all "created equal" according to a famous document that actually is about governing our nation). He's right, those who believe in freedom must stick together. He just happens to not believe in freedom.
10
Wow - "Polls indicate that the American consensus is changing — but like many other believers, I will not change my faith-driven view on this matter, even if it becomes a minority opinion."
This is such a loaded paragraph, where to begin? It debases scientific inquiry and evolutionary thought - just because an idea is established and traditional, it should be strictly adhered to. Under this argument we should start persecuting Jews and Blacks again. It supports tyranny of the few on the majority. It upends any sense of precious freedom - to exist and think.
I thought we had separation of church and state, I thought we lived in a democracy. I thought elected leaders were to serve all the people. What a despicable world view. Why are Christians so insecure? They are the majority yet their beliefs must be imposed on the rest of us. I don't want to live in Mr. Jindal's world.
This is such a loaded paragraph, where to begin? It debases scientific inquiry and evolutionary thought - just because an idea is established and traditional, it should be strictly adhered to. Under this argument we should start persecuting Jews and Blacks again. It supports tyranny of the few on the majority. It upends any sense of precious freedom - to exist and think.
I thought we had separation of church and state, I thought we lived in a democracy. I thought elected leaders were to serve all the people. What a despicable world view. Why are Christians so insecure? They are the majority yet their beliefs must be imposed on the rest of us. I don't want to live in Mr. Jindal's world.
7
OK, if that is his argument, then I have the right not to serve Christian conservatives at my business, or any other person of a particular race or ethnicity that I find objectionable.
6
Mr. Jindal's definition of a radical liberal is a person who believes that "All men were created equal", all Americans should be afforded the same rights under the law, and it is wrong to discriminate under the guise of religion. He may find out, if he hasn't already, that those pesky radicals represent the majority.
7
The reason religious zealots will ultimately never prevail, whether it be attempts to prevent women from making their own choices ot preventing same sex couples from doing the same, is their underlying mental defect that preempts them from seeing that outside of their homes and family is none of their business. Their choices are theirs to make and mine are mine to make. Its amazing the fundamental principles that set this country apart and what make America the Land of the Free are so ill-understood by the ultrareligious elements. I guess religous zeal has always been an impetus for losing ones sense of God given reason, ironically.
6
We here in Louisiana are facing a $1.6 Billion deficit because this guy not only refuses to offer a solution to our problem, he focuses on the ridiculous. He has spent the large majority of his disatrous career silently running a stealth presidential campaign. Meanwhile, the state's higher education system is being gutted. I just found out that the Geography Department at my alma mater, The University of New Orleans, is being eliminated.
4
These same people who are so strongly committed to absolute freedom for religion would be the first (I hope) to accept limitations on religion if confronted with the reality (as in real) that some have argued that female genital mutilation and even cannibalism (when done reverently) can also be forms of religious ritual. Of couse there are cultural limitations on religion. There always have been. There are simply religious practices that we do not accept as a society. Discriminating against our citizens is one of them.
Please let's stand back from this tendency we have to choose our tribes and make ridiculous claims about them being right. Christianity should be more worried about driving away its belivers since it is not the largest religion in the world. It should be cherishing all of us. Can't we please get beyond the Puritans?
Please let's stand back from this tendency we have to choose our tribes and make ridiculous claims about them being right. Christianity should be more worried about driving away its belivers since it is not the largest religion in the world. It should be cherishing all of us. Can't we please get beyond the Puritans?
Jindel,
You asked, "Why shouldn’t an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony that violates a sincerely held religious belief?"
Here's why:
No Constitutional rights are "absolute," i.e., apply under all circumstances. Any Constitutional right is valid ONLY when its exercise does not violate a moral or constitutional right or protectable interest of another party. Even though one has a right to free speech, there is no Constitutional right to yell "Fire!" in a theater when there isn't a fire. Similarly, the Constitutional right to religious liberty has a domain of circumstances to which it legitimately applies, but it does not apply when its exercise violates a Constitutional right, whether primal or derived from a primal one listed in the Constitution, of another human being. While one has a derivative Constitutional right to engage in religious practice, that right only applies as long as its exercise does not violate a Constitutional right or protectable interest of another person, e.g., in being served by a business that offers public accommodation and is open to the public.
Kindly cease and desist further intellectually bankrupt efforts intended to recruit homophobic voters in a campaign that is already on life-support.
By the way, how are those Muslims-only zones in Birmingham working out for you?!
You asked, "Why shouldn’t an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony that violates a sincerely held religious belief?"
Here's why:
No Constitutional rights are "absolute," i.e., apply under all circumstances. Any Constitutional right is valid ONLY when its exercise does not violate a moral or constitutional right or protectable interest of another party. Even though one has a right to free speech, there is no Constitutional right to yell "Fire!" in a theater when there isn't a fire. Similarly, the Constitutional right to religious liberty has a domain of circumstances to which it legitimately applies, but it does not apply when its exercise violates a Constitutional right, whether primal or derived from a primal one listed in the Constitution, of another human being. While one has a derivative Constitutional right to engage in religious practice, that right only applies as long as its exercise does not violate a Constitutional right or protectable interest of another person, e.g., in being served by a business that offers public accommodation and is open to the public.
Kindly cease and desist further intellectually bankrupt efforts intended to recruit homophobic voters in a campaign that is already on life-support.
By the way, how are those Muslims-only zones in Birmingham working out for you?!
2
What baffles me is why so many who feel so strongly about exercising their religious freedoms don't see working with gay people as a wonderful opportunity to "save" them. Doesn't the bible say that the followers of Christ are responsible for spreading the word? If you feel so strongly, show it by including others - not excluding them. Plus, it's not illegal if your clients fire you, because your beliefs vary from theirs...Or is it that you just want to be free to judge and scorn people who believe differently?
1
Dear Mr. Jindal,
You identify "freedom and free enterprise" as the conservative's core values. Since boycotts are expressions of the free market in action, I trust you won't oppose an effort to boycott your state, on political principle? Shouldn't I have the right to spend (or not spend) my money as I see fit? Economic protest against you and your state laws isn't "bullying"; actually, it's an expression of the very freedom you pretend to protect.
You identify "freedom and free enterprise" as the conservative's core values. Since boycotts are expressions of the free market in action, I trust you won't oppose an effort to boycott your state, on political principle? Shouldn't I have the right to spend (or not spend) my money as I see fit? Economic protest against you and your state laws isn't "bullying"; actually, it's an expression of the very freedom you pretend to protect.
5
Jindal want freedom of religion. But only for Evangelical Christians. Only that religion needs to be enshrined in Constitutional protection. Muslim, Hindu, Judaism and everything else that is not Evangelical Christian is not a "real" religion. Folks like Jindal make me hope for a day when Evangelical Christians are equated with Islamic Fundamentalists and treated as such
6
I don't understand how he can say "A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us." and go on to extoll how everyone should be free to be intolerant of what they don't agree with religiously. I say if a business wants to discriminate, let them discriminate and see how long they remain in business.
4
It's so telling that he's calling "corporate titans" to the battlefront. The Constitution does talk about religion - but it doesn't talk about corporations. We're supposed to be a nation of individual citizens duking out - so to speak - our policy differences.
I do not know enough of the history of the Raj to recall what the Indian equivalent of what we would call "Uncle Tom's" in the South was. But Jindal is clearly that person that worked for the British, keeping the brown people in line, often in worse ways than the British wanted, all to be able to live in a nice home, and eat good food.
He is doing it to serve his "masters", the Tea Party; I'd add that Nicky Haley of SC is in the exam same mold. It's incredibly sad to me that they feel that they must debase themselves for gain.
He is doing it to serve his "masters", the Tea Party; I'd add that Nicky Haley of SC is in the exam same mold. It's incredibly sad to me that they feel that they must debase themselves for gain.
6
I would suggest to Mr. Jindal that his time might be better served trying to get his state up from being 49th in the country for education or digging out of the billion dollar hole his irresponsible economic policies caused. This kind of last-ditch bigotry will not stop the tide of equality.
9
I will address this comment to the author of the letter, Bobby Jindal:
1) If you believe so strongly in liberty then why do you believe in denying gay couples the liberty to marry?
2) On what sound principle can a business refuse a publicly offered service to a subset of the population? If a business offers wedding catering services, then why should they be free to deny this service to a subset of the population?
3) Would it also be okay if a fundamentalist Mormon business refused to cater the marriage of an interracial couple because it violates fundamentalist Mormon teaching? If not, then how is denying service to a gay couple any different?
4) You complain about businesses threatening to relocate and complain about businesses lobbying against Religious Freedom legislation. Is it your position that all business lobbying and relocation threats are "bullying?" If businesses lobbied California for lower taxes and threatened to leave if they did not get their way, would you also call that "bullying?"
Just wondering.
1) If you believe so strongly in liberty then why do you believe in denying gay couples the liberty to marry?
2) On what sound principle can a business refuse a publicly offered service to a subset of the population? If a business offers wedding catering services, then why should they be free to deny this service to a subset of the population?
3) Would it also be okay if a fundamentalist Mormon business refused to cater the marriage of an interracial couple because it violates fundamentalist Mormon teaching? If not, then how is denying service to a gay couple any different?
4) You complain about businesses threatening to relocate and complain about businesses lobbying against Religious Freedom legislation. Is it your position that all business lobbying and relocation threats are "bullying?" If businesses lobbied California for lower taxes and threatened to leave if they did not get their way, would you also call that "bullying?"
Just wondering.
4
There is something I don't understand. How does protection against "participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony" reinforce or support someone's religious belief against gay marriage if, after the marriage ceremony is completed, that same business is happily serving the married couple? How did the Right carve out that 25 minutes of a couple's life and say "no, not there" but then say "okay, everywhere else"? The logic of "come into my pizza parlor the day after you are married and spend all your money here, but don't ask me to send pizzas to the wedding reception" escapes me. I feel I am missing some crucial religious conviction here.
9
Kudos to Bobby Jindal for standing firm about freedom of religion.
That freedom is in fact jeopardized today by many. Remember the "separation of church and state" that was the foundation of American democracy in its very early days? We now jeopardize that constitutional guarantee by inviting the Pope to speak to Congress. The framers of the constitution would be appalled.
Separation of church and state means an end to laws outlawing abortion, or laws which declare that "abortion is murder." After all, how abortion should be regarded often does depend on religious views.
Some might interpret the writings of the Holy Scriptures, the description of Abraham's call to sacrifice his son Isaac, as God proposing that not just abortion, but infanticide, might be justifiable, particularly in times of hardship. Abraham and others of his period must have often confronted the serious moral question: Should we bring more children into the world, when many are already starving?
Indeed, this is a question that should be confronted by those who pretend to be religious now.
Hundreds of millions around the world suffer from near starvation. One can read about their plight in an excellent book by Katherine Boo, Beyond the Beautiful Forevers, which describes life in Mumbai slums.
The poor are forced to confront a different morality than the affluent.
Unfortunately, the Pope who will address Congress believes that it is "selfish
to not have at least three children. He is wrong.
That freedom is in fact jeopardized today by many. Remember the "separation of church and state" that was the foundation of American democracy in its very early days? We now jeopardize that constitutional guarantee by inviting the Pope to speak to Congress. The framers of the constitution would be appalled.
Separation of church and state means an end to laws outlawing abortion, or laws which declare that "abortion is murder." After all, how abortion should be regarded often does depend on religious views.
Some might interpret the writings of the Holy Scriptures, the description of Abraham's call to sacrifice his son Isaac, as God proposing that not just abortion, but infanticide, might be justifiable, particularly in times of hardship. Abraham and others of his period must have often confronted the serious moral question: Should we bring more children into the world, when many are already starving?
Indeed, this is a question that should be confronted by those who pretend to be religious now.
Hundreds of millions around the world suffer from near starvation. One can read about their plight in an excellent book by Katherine Boo, Beyond the Beautiful Forevers, which describes life in Mumbai slums.
The poor are forced to confront a different morality than the affluent.
Unfortunately, the Pope who will address Congress believes that it is "selfish
to not have at least three children. He is wrong.
3
And again, religion is used as a vehicle to deliver hate. In summary Jindal is saying is that he dislikes gay people. Well, he is on the wrong side of this issue, as a species we have moved past this discrimination. We, The People, are past it, We have seen the light, Jindal should take note.
All we need in life is the golden rule, nothing more, all else is fluff. Mr Jindal do you live the golden rule?
All we need in life is the golden rule, nothing more, all else is fluff. Mr Jindal do you live the golden rule?
10
I'd be just as happy to see all of these anti-gay measures be enacted into law so we could see the businesses choosing to "exercise their rights," wither and die. The difference between this and the civil rights movement is that the bigots have already lost this time.
4
Bobby Jindal hopes to unite conservative on the issue of gay marriage but his real reason for doing this is not to save the institution of marriage as he sees it. It is to distract the public from his lousy handling of his governorship, especially his handling of the Louisiana economy which is currently in the tank. He rails against "radical liberals" (is there such an animal in America?), and against those who would "tax and regulate businesses out of existence," but his real fear is that we will see the mess he's made working from the supply sider's handbook of economic catastrophe.
As for religious liberty, it's still enshrined in the Constitution. You just can't use that liberty to discriminate against others. If you're in business, and you hang out your sign, and it says "open for business," you are open for business with whomever walks through your door.
As for religious liberty, it's still enshrined in the Constitution. You just can't use that liberty to discriminate against others. If you're in business, and you hang out your sign, and it says "open for business," you are open for business with whomever walks through your door.
8
The fact that a man of color is fighting on the side of 21st century Montgomery lunch counters, striving to empower through law those who would irrationally and unfairly discriminate in the public sphere against a minority, is repulsive.
We'll save our words, Mr. Jindal—and we'll save our money as well, to spend in states not ruled by those hiding the shadow of bigotry behind a mask of 'religious freedom'.
We'll save our words, Mr. Jindal—and we'll save our money as well, to spend in states not ruled by those hiding the shadow of bigotry behind a mask of 'religious freedom'.
10
Staying true to one's core religious beliefs, and Biblical teachings, has nothing to do with your comment -- and ironically for you, the Civil Rights movement never would have succeeded without religious teachings and Christian activists. Who knew?
can we all just agree that whatever hopes Jindal ever had about competing for, let alone holding, any national elected office are now buried at least as deep as the Ponchartrain?
4
Ponchartrain is actually shallow, like Lake Okeechobee, and everyone knows that Jindal is part of the GOP back bench, best utilized along with Cruz and Rand Paul and Christie for lobbing grenades into cozy Liberal assumptions, while the GOP front ranks advance.
Bobby Jindal and the rest of the Republicans think their beliefs are more important than the rest of humanity. I feel sorry for his children who are growing up learning hatred and not compassion.
7
Don't be so sure about his kids. My parents were very homophobic, I am most certainly not.
Several of my siblings are conservative and homophobic, their kids aren't in the least bit homophobic and many of them have gay friends.
Several of my siblings are conservative and homophobic, their kids aren't in the least bit homophobic and many of them have gay friends.
Mr. Jindal, your political posturing and pandering is insulting to anyone who knows how to live amongst others equally, and is not threatened by differences and freedom of choice. Your message is unequivocally un-american and falsely righteous.
5
Bobby Jindal is a calculating and conniving politician. He discovered long back that since more than 90 percent of Indian Americans are Democrats, and since Republicans are dying to get token minorities in their party, it suits him to portray himself as an extreme right wing person. He has been an opportunist all his life. His calculation started with his conversion to Christianity, and later joining the Republican party. He is simply uncomfortable in his own skin. As an Indian American, I am ashamed of him.
5
Radical liberals? One of the earliest and loudest opponents to Indiana's law ran Mitch Daniels' campaign for governor.
3
What really worries me about these bills isn't the hot topic of whether it is illegal for a devout Christian photographer to only offer Christian Wedding Photography (same as a Kosher deli only offering Kosher food), but it is how easy/quickly will this be used to justify the practicing of Sharia law contrary to our existing laws?
2
There's a lot that rings hollow in virtually every public utterance Gov. Bobby JIndal makes, but his repetitive harping on "religious freedom" and "religious liberty" as the supposed grounding for obsessive anti-gay laws echoes particularly loudly in this Op-Ed. Under all the whinging about "victimization" and phony-bravado about "bullying" by the "radical left" (I.e. the majority of the country), it is blatantly obvious that the only "freedom" Gov. Jindal is concerned with is the freedom to discriminate.
8
With his state on the verge of bankruptcy, one of the least popular and least effective governors in the nation is ham-fistedly attempting to salvage what support he can muster from the hatemongering fringe otherwise known as the GOP base. Whether it's fighting the scourge of Sharia threatening to make landfall any day now, or bravely opposing the redistribution of wealth needed to teach poor kids to read, Jindal is almost pathological in his excesses. This op-ed is no exception. God help us, is he really still trying to run for some sort of higher office? In another well thought out strategy, Jindal's first step appears to be to raise his profile by antagonizing young people and business leaders. Can't we just skip ahead to the part where he shares space with former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura?
1
Jindal is an intelligent, well-educated person. I find it hard to accept that he actually believes any of this. Surely he must see that allowing religion to trump civil law leads to chaos (see Middle East). He must also see that the history of RFRA does not support its current application; it was to allow Native Americans to use peyote in religious ceremonies and the Amish to take horse-drawn buggies on roads. I know he is not looking to convert readers of the NYT, that this is red meat rhetoric aimed at folks in Louisiana. But I find it disheartening that an intelligent, well-educated person would stoop to this level instead of trying to bring his constituents onto a higher, better level -- to actually lead.
5
I mostly agree with Jindal on the very specific point of business freedom. But I do disagree with him on about government contracts. If businesses discriminate, fine, but the state shouldn't give it's approval by issuing them a government contract.
And where was his belief in freedom when same sex couples wanted to marry?
And where was his belief in freedom when same sex couples wanted to marry?
Jindal states, 'The left-wing ideologues who oppose religious freedom are the same ones who seek to tax and regulate businesses out of existence.' What does this have to do with the 1st Amendment? The good residents of LA have among the nations shortest life-spans due to the state's ridiculous anti-environmental regulations. The Governor has said his law will apply only to marriage - clearly violating the U.S. constitution. So why has Louisiana made following Sharia law illegal - only right-wing bigoted Christians get their views updated. Why? Can't a Muslim have his 4-wives based on his religious views?. No, this is right-wing bigotry at full tilt - blaming others for their own foolishness...his views should be hung around the neck of every GOP candidate for office.
5
People who assume religion is a "given," see any small infringement upon their beliefs as being a huge deal. What they cannot recognize, because of their biases, is how religious views infringe on those of us who are not religious on practically a continuous basis.
Jindal and other should just quit while they are ahead.
Jindal and other should just quit while they are ahead.
4
Bobby Jindal in holding firm to his anti-gay beliefs will drive away businesses and tourists, who do not wish to support his brand of bigotry masquerading as "religious freedom". New Orleans, in particular, will suffer when tourist bypass his city on account of this bigoted legislation, which ultimately will be ruled unconstitutional.
3
I don't think he understands. You cannot discriminate against anyone, period. I couldn't refuse service to a black person, even if my religion said I could.
It's getting a bit weird when liberals are defending the Constitution vigorously, and the GOP only wants to cherry pick from it to suit their needs.
It's getting a bit weird when liberals are defending the Constitution vigorously, and the GOP only wants to cherry pick from it to suit their needs.
2
Mr. Jindal, I don't understand. You say that these bills do not create a right to discriminate against gays and lesbians. But if these laws don't permit a business to treat gays and lesbians differently than straight couples (whether you call that freedom or discrimination), then how do they protect the rights of businesses not to participate in gay/lesbian marriages? Isn't the whole point that forcing a photographer to take pictures of a gay wedding violates the photographer's religious freedoms? If the law doesn't give the photographer the right to refuse that job on the basis of the couple's sexual orientation, then why bother to fight for it? It's very hard to respect a position when the proponent isn't frank about it. I don't mind having an honest disagreement about whether laws like these are a good idea or are Constitutionally sound, but the precursor to an honest disagreement is honesty.
2
Mr. Jindal, it turns that I also have a right to free speech. Moreover, I and (more importantly to you) corporations may choose to spend their money how and where they choose. Corporations letting you know that they cannot maintain good business practices in a state that encourages discrimination is not bullying. It simply informing you of how they wish to spend their money.
Living in Indiana, I likewise try to choose to spend my money at businesses that would choose, regardless of the law not to discriminate. I do not shop at Hobby Lobby. That is how I wish to exercise my free speech.
If you truly hold that religious conviction, you do not need the government to protect you with a law.
Living in Indiana, I likewise try to choose to spend my money at businesses that would choose, regardless of the law not to discriminate. I do not shop at Hobby Lobby. That is how I wish to exercise my free speech.
If you truly hold that religious conviction, you do not need the government to protect you with a law.
3
Why is it that those with certain rights want to prevent others from having those same rights? Why are we still debating this issue? I guess Gov. Jindal longs for the days pre-15th and pre-19th amendments.
4
You go, Bobby! The world would end if the right to not participate in a gay wedding ceremony is not written in stone. Is anybody there? Has anyone actually been required to participate in a wedding they did not want to provide a service to? Seems like a non issue about nothing.
3
When "religious liberty" is redefined to mean the ability to use your religion as an excuse to oppress others, it is not something that deserves to be protected.
8
"Our country was founded on the principle of religious liberty, enshrined in the Bill of Rights"
Our country was also founded on the principle that a black person was 3/5 of a person, enshrined in the Constitution. Do you still abide by that?
The principle of religious liberty has not changed BUT what religions are allowed to do in the name of religion has changed.
Do we still think women are 2nd class citizens and should have a voice? Do we think a husband holds absolute power over his wife and should be able to beat her if she disobeys? Do we consider children chattel? Do we allow a lot more divorce for more reasons now?
The world has changed. The 18th century Christianists living the 21st century need to read up on history and move forward, not backward.
I wonder what other regressive beliefs Mr Jindal holds that he won't say out loud?
Our country was also founded on the principle that a black person was 3/5 of a person, enshrined in the Constitution. Do you still abide by that?
The principle of religious liberty has not changed BUT what religions are allowed to do in the name of religion has changed.
Do we still think women are 2nd class citizens and should have a voice? Do we think a husband holds absolute power over his wife and should be able to beat her if she disobeys? Do we consider children chattel? Do we allow a lot more divorce for more reasons now?
The world has changed. The 18th century Christianists living the 21st century need to read up on history and move forward, not backward.
I wonder what other regressive beliefs Mr Jindal holds that he won't say out loud?
6
The rhetoric is just cynical pandering. But the legislation is utterly wrong-headed. The Governor announces his intent to fight for passage of a Marriage and Conscience Act that doesn't even disguise its purpose: To provide legal protection for those who claim a religious belief or moral conviction as their basis for invidious discrimination.
The Governor claims that the bill does not create a right to discriminate.
He is only correct in the sense that that right exists in Louisiana already, and this bill seeks to protect it.
The Governor claims that the bill does not create a right to discriminate.
He is only correct in the sense that that right exists in Louisiana already, and this bill seeks to protect it.
2
Bobby it cuts both ways. As a proud agnostic Believe I believe the Constitution protects me from other peoples religion in the public square and in my private space. That this not the common view is due to the hijacking of the First Amendment by fundamentalist Christians. But we "left wing activists" are growing in numbers while theirs is dwindling. It might be time to start warming to our ideas.
2
Growing in numbers? Ha! Not based on the 2014 election you're not.
Funny thing. No matter how moronic the point of view, because someone is the governor of a state they can get an op-ed piece in the New York Times. Well, at least it gives us a public record to show our grandchildren, letting them know who the clown car drivers were back in the day.
Even stranger, the writer is able to publish outlandish ideas about law, history and religion that are completely wrong. An 8th grader would be failed if they put Gov. Jindal's "facts" on their civic exam. And there's no way a, say New York high school student, would get a passing mark or a Regent's diploma by saying those things.
But, hey, he's a governor. Of a state. One of the poorest in the country, one that lives off more federal money than they'll ever send to Washington. So, I'm guessing, in some weird sort of way, that makes it okay.
Thankfully, too, it'll show the general public how wing-nut crazy people who claim to be Republican conservatives really are.
Every time Jindal and his "fellow travelers" call themselves "conservatives" and rail against "liberals," Barry Goldwater must be spinning in his grave.
Even stranger, the writer is able to publish outlandish ideas about law, history and religion that are completely wrong. An 8th grader would be failed if they put Gov. Jindal's "facts" on their civic exam. And there's no way a, say New York high school student, would get a passing mark or a Regent's diploma by saying those things.
But, hey, he's a governor. Of a state. One of the poorest in the country, one that lives off more federal money than they'll ever send to Washington. So, I'm guessing, in some weird sort of way, that makes it okay.
Thankfully, too, it'll show the general public how wing-nut crazy people who claim to be Republican conservatives really are.
Every time Jindal and his "fellow travelers" call themselves "conservatives" and rail against "liberals," Barry Goldwater must be spinning in his grave.
7
Despite the obfuscation around freedom, Jindal hides the fact that bans on religious discrimination are prohibited by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So he's hardly arguing for a level playing field where homophobic Christians be given a right to discriminate against LGBT people and anti-theists be given a similar right to discriminate against religious people. He wants entitlement, pure and simple.
I would also point out the pure hypocrisy of his position. Jesus said that divorce and remarriage for reasons other than infidelity is adultery - prohibited in the 10 Commandments. Where were these religious freedom laws when divorce and remarriage was widely legalized in this country 50 years ago when evangelical churches starting marrying divorced people catered by bakeries and photographers? That sin, the one that Jesus actually talked about, is quietly ignored while Jindal and others shriek about serving gay people, a group Jesus never discussed.
I would also point out that his position is completely at odds with what Christ taught in the Bible. In the Gospel of St. Matthew 5:40-42 Jesus tells us that we are to serve everyone no matter what they ask:
"And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
Instead of actually being Christians, they use Christianity as a weapon.
I would also point out the pure hypocrisy of his position. Jesus said that divorce and remarriage for reasons other than infidelity is adultery - prohibited in the 10 Commandments. Where were these religious freedom laws when divorce and remarriage was widely legalized in this country 50 years ago when evangelical churches starting marrying divorced people catered by bakeries and photographers? That sin, the one that Jesus actually talked about, is quietly ignored while Jindal and others shriek about serving gay people, a group Jesus never discussed.
I would also point out that his position is completely at odds with what Christ taught in the Bible. In the Gospel of St. Matthew 5:40-42 Jesus tells us that we are to serve everyone no matter what they ask:
"And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
Instead of actually being Christians, they use Christianity as a weapon.
3
Yes. Let us remember EVERYONE has rights and that you
do not have to be a "victim" to have rights and that rights
are not doled out based upon how victimized you are.
And people's rights get impinged all the time---
that is what laws are all about.
Most often in a "conflict of rights" situation
like the gay marriage issue Courts will look at
the degree and scope of harm if any,
precedents for the positions of both sides
and the compelling reasons for the plaintiff's case.
Generally to make a major change the plaintiff
has the burden to prove the change should be made.
Gay marriage fails on all these points.
There is no significant harm done if gay marriage is not legalized.
I think gay marriage supporters are making a mountain out of a molehill.
And it doesn't matter how many special needs kids gay couples adopt.
There are no enduring precedents for gay marriage in biology, history or law.
If gay marriage truly had value it would have developed parallel
to heterosexual marriage and would now be an established social contract.
And finally proponents have not met the burden of proof and demonstrated
that gay marriage is of sufficient value to society to be legalized.
I just don't understand the big deal. Legalizing gay marriage will do nothing
for me at all that is good. Why should I support it? No reason I can think of.
I sure hope SCOTUS is listening.
do not have to be a "victim" to have rights and that rights
are not doled out based upon how victimized you are.
And people's rights get impinged all the time---
that is what laws are all about.
Most often in a "conflict of rights" situation
like the gay marriage issue Courts will look at
the degree and scope of harm if any,
precedents for the positions of both sides
and the compelling reasons for the plaintiff's case.
Generally to make a major change the plaintiff
has the burden to prove the change should be made.
Gay marriage fails on all these points.
There is no significant harm done if gay marriage is not legalized.
I think gay marriage supporters are making a mountain out of a molehill.
And it doesn't matter how many special needs kids gay couples adopt.
There are no enduring precedents for gay marriage in biology, history or law.
If gay marriage truly had value it would have developed parallel
to heterosexual marriage and would now be an established social contract.
And finally proponents have not met the burden of proof and demonstrated
that gay marriage is of sufficient value to society to be legalized.
I just don't understand the big deal. Legalizing gay marriage will do nothing
for me at all that is good. Why should I support it? No reason I can think of.
I sure hope SCOTUS is listening.
2
I, too, hope SCOTUS is listening because people like you with your negative position on LGBT civil rights completely miss the point of marriage equality.
Legalizing "gay marriage" indeed probably will do nothing for you at all that is, as you put it, "good". In fact, it will do nothing for you OR to you. It no doubt will have no effect on you at all - period. So why care what equal rights are granted to those of us who don't currently enjoy them?
Your position against us makes you look bigoted, mean-spirited and petty. And, if that's what being a Christian is, then no wonder so many Americans, especially young Americans, are saying "no thanks" to you and your ilk.
Legalizing "gay marriage" indeed probably will do nothing for you at all that is, as you put it, "good". In fact, it will do nothing for you OR to you. It no doubt will have no effect on you at all - period. So why care what equal rights are granted to those of us who don't currently enjoy them?
Your position against us makes you look bigoted, mean-spirited and petty. And, if that's what being a Christian is, then no wonder so many Americans, especially young Americans, are saying "no thanks" to you and your ilk.
1
How did Governor Bobby fail to include "outside agitators" in his bogeyman pantheon? Well, even though he appears to have missed that one when he was culling White Citizens' Council, John Birch Society, and Klan racist tracts for names to call those who believe in separation of Church and State and the government's duty to protect citizens from discrimination, he did a truly stellar job of pandering to the Republican Primary voters of Iowa and New Hampshire. Go Bobby! Another clown piling into the tiny car.
5
Members of the Westboro Baptist church go to funerals and hold up disgusting signs that read "God hates ..... etc." You've seen those.
If the sign maker (usually a small shop somewhere) refuses to provide service to make those hideous signs, they should not be compelled by the government to do so, and it should be within their rights to turn that customer away.
If the sign maker (usually a small shop somewhere) refuses to provide service to make those hideous signs, they should not be compelled by the government to do so, and it should be within their rights to turn that customer away.
1
"We don't serve that kind of cake": Is NOT discrimination. A customer that wants nasty messaging on a product, that the company has never put on their products, is the customer demanding accommodation that's not generally provided.
"We don't serve your kind": Is discriminating against the customer and their perceived background. A background that typically cannot be ascertained at face value.
The religious in question, are not generally discriminating against 'sinners', but a specific group. Therefore their defense that it's for religious reasons they deny services to gay couples, is a lie. And it's discrimination.
It's not just bakers and florists pulling this. It's justices and county clerks also. Who are SWORN public servants who also don't have a religious test in which to decide the moral fitness of the public they serve.
Being called a bigot, is a word that chafes the very people behaving like bigots, and demanding that public policy support it.
But that is exactly what it is. Bigotry, based on religion.
But bigotry nonetheless.
"We don't serve your kind": Is discriminating against the customer and their perceived background. A background that typically cannot be ascertained at face value.
The religious in question, are not generally discriminating against 'sinners', but a specific group. Therefore their defense that it's for religious reasons they deny services to gay couples, is a lie. And it's discrimination.
It's not just bakers and florists pulling this. It's justices and county clerks also. Who are SWORN public servants who also don't have a religious test in which to decide the moral fitness of the public they serve.
Being called a bigot, is a word that chafes the very people behaving like bigots, and demanding that public policy support it.
But that is exactly what it is. Bigotry, based on religion.
But bigotry nonetheless.
1
Not the same thing. That printer can refuse to print hate speech and APPLY THIS TO ALL CUSTOMERS EQUALLY. See the difference? They would not be singling out one group of customers and denying service.
1
Mr. Jindal, you want to pass a law that would abet discrimination. You say social justice should defer to religious conviction. America is a secular country that tolerates religious diversity, it is not a religious country that tolerates claims of social justice. State sanctioned discrimination based on religious claims is atrocious and should be anathema in a free society.
5
What if my religion says black people are inferior? And I sincerely believe it? Does this mean I can refuse to rent an apartment to a black person? You know, 'cause religion?
5
What an absurd comparison. No one is refusing to "rent an apartment" or provide any other common service to gays, they have have been treated fairly in that regard for decades. But if someone does not want to participate in their "wedding", they should not be forced to, particularly when there are other businesses that don't share those convictions and would gladly accept their business. I dont believe in "gay marriage" and would refuse to provide any service whatsoever - come sue me.
What brazen hypocrisy! Jindal and his GOP state legislature, like those in Mike Pence's Indiana and other states, have been forcing all taxpayers to support sectarian religious private schools through vouchers, tax credits and other sleazy gimmicks. This is very clearly a major assault on religious liberty, as James Madison warned so brilliantly in 1785 in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. Not only are Jindal and other Republicans thumbing their noses at our constitutional heritage of church-state separation, they are also hellbent on wrecking our democratic, religiously neutral public schools and on fragmenting our population along religious, ideological, class, ethnic and other lines. When will enough Americans stand up and say NO? -- Edd Doerr (arlinc.org)
3
I continue to be stunned by people who play God in the name of God. The Creator must be so sad.
Next up: A rainbow star must be affixed to any known married or engaged gay person's clothing so that "religious" persons can refuse to acknowledge them or patronize their businesses. Heterosexual people, be sure you only purchase heterosexual goods and services! Rat out any clandestine gay-owned businesses. Prevent sin!
Next up: A rainbow star must be affixed to any known married or engaged gay person's clothing so that "religious" persons can refuse to acknowledge them or patronize their businesses. Heterosexual people, be sure you only purchase heterosexual goods and services! Rat out any clandestine gay-owned businesses. Prevent sin!
2
I'm sure if Mr. Jindal lived 50 years earlier he would use the same logic to allow 'men of conscience' to refuse to serve at interracial weddings -- which were opposed in the same way as gay weddings, on religious grounds. Religion was no excuse for bigotry then, and it is no excuse now.
2
According to the US Census Bureau Louisiana ranks 47th lowest in per capita income. I wouldn't exactly brag about this.
You claim that "Liberals have decided that if they can’t win at the ballot box, they will win in the boardroom. " And in the same breadth "If it’s not freedom for all, it’s not freedom at all. This strategy requires populist social conservatives to ally with the business community on economic matters and corporate titans to side with social conservatives on cultural matters. So it is "Do as I say not as I do".
If you truly believe in freedom for all that must inherently include US citizens who are members of the LGBT community.
Louisiana can keep you if they so choose, but please spare the rest of the nation your twisted logic.
You claim that "Liberals have decided that if they can’t win at the ballot box, they will win in the boardroom. " And in the same breadth "If it’s not freedom for all, it’s not freedom at all. This strategy requires populist social conservatives to ally with the business community on economic matters and corporate titans to side with social conservatives on cultural matters. So it is "Do as I say not as I do".
If you truly believe in freedom for all that must inherently include US citizens who are members of the LGBT community.
Louisiana can keep you if they so choose, but please spare the rest of the nation your twisted logic.
To all who disagree with Governor Jindal: would you allow a Christian registered nurse to refuse to participate in an abortion? Or a Jewish physisician to deny a patient in Oregon medication to kill herself? Or a Muslim the right to declare a conscientious objection if drafted? If not, then the argument over cakes and flowers for gay weddings is indeed destroying our commitment to religious liberty.
2
If the nurse chooses to work for a provider of comprehensive ob-gyn work that includes abortion services then she needs to do the job she was hired to do. Why would she choose employment whose job requirements might directly challenge her religious liberty? If the Jewish doctor (why is the doctor Jewish rather than of any faith?) works for a physicians' group that is known in Oregon for providing the legally allowed medicine that Oregon permits for physician assisted suicide, the doctor surely knew that and thus has no claim of conscience in fulfilling the job requirements. Your Muslim example is different since virtually everyone has a right to claim conscientious objection to military service but the decision to grant such an exemption is not a given and is subject to intense scrutiny. Since we don't have a draft the chances of this situation being a reality are nil. If you are arguing that Muslims cannot be conscientious objectors because of their religion, then you are simply being insulting.
When my husband and married in 1970 our interracial marriage was only possible because of the recognition of the specific civil rights pertaining to marriage. People could have religious liberty to find our marriage abhorrent and against the laws of God but they could not refuse us a hotel room or other public accommodation. I am deeply committed to your religious liberty but just as deeply committed to equality under the law. You can find a balance.
When my husband and married in 1970 our interracial marriage was only possible because of the recognition of the specific civil rights pertaining to marriage. People could have religious liberty to find our marriage abhorrent and against the laws of God but they could not refuse us a hotel room or other public accommodation. I am deeply committed to your religious liberty but just as deeply committed to equality under the law. You can find a balance.
Jindal calls for tolerance of those with deeply held religious beliefs while repeatedly and intolerantly referring to anyone that doesn't agree with his opinion as "left wing", "radical" and "liberal". He also attacks the traditionally republican business community for standing against these red herring "religious freedom" bills. So now the right is attacking its own, steadily confining itself to a corner from which they cannot grow as a party and from where they will be consigned to a heap of irrelevance as the rest of the country moves forward.
Jindals attempt to gain traction in a GOP race that resembles the great
"Confederacy of Dunces", a spectacular piece of American literature about his own New Oroeans, is desperate and pathetic.
Jindals attempt to gain traction in a GOP race that resembles the great
"Confederacy of Dunces", a spectacular piece of American literature about his own New Oroeans, is desperate and pathetic.
4
"Our country was founded on the principle of religious liberty, enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Why shouldn’t an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony that violates a sincerely held religious belief.” I am delighted that Bobby Jindal has chosen to pitch himself headlong down the slippery slope of this issue by so forthrightly making the grievously mistaken, calculated ploy to offer this reprehensible defense of the indefensible. In this exhibition of sanctimonious hubris he has gone from being merely marginalized to utterly irrelevant.
2
Bobby, it is unnecessary to drop the God-bomb on people whose opinions and actions you do not approve of. By the way, corporations are not religious entities, nor are they arbiters of religious expression--they are artificial individual entities created for the purpose of making money and ducking responsibilities.
1
Is this a real Op-Ed? There are so many things appalling and wrong with this piece it hurts. If the law doesn't change anything, according to Jindal. Then what makes the law necessary? Jindal says, so a judge cannot miss "our constitutional freedom." What!?! You mean judges have been on the bench for centuries missing our "constitutional freedom" as they adjudicated cases? I believe Jindal is trying to make sense out of something that is not intelligible.
"sincerely held religious belief?" What if such a belief calls for polygamy? Or polyandry? Or human sacrifice? Or slavery? Or denying children competent medical care?
Jindal's argument is, in this year of Our Lord 1915, literally ridiculous. Sincerely and religiously believe what you want, Governor. But don't try to dignify the imposition of it on others--who sincerely believe it to be nonsense-- by invoking "freedom."
Jindal's argument is, in this year of Our Lord 1915, literally ridiculous. Sincerely and religiously believe what you want, Governor. But don't try to dignify the imposition of it on others--who sincerely believe it to be nonsense-- by invoking "freedom."
1
Mr. Jindal,
Liberty means freedom to do something, not prevent another from doing something. The Religious Freedom guaranteed in our Constitution protects your right to practice your religion, but it does not give you the right to prevent another person from practicing his or her religion.
Liberty means freedom to do something, not prevent another from doing something. The Religious Freedom guaranteed in our Constitution protects your right to practice your religion, but it does not give you the right to prevent another person from practicing his or her religion.
2
"Conservative leaders cannot sit idly by and allow large corporations to rip our coalition in half."
Bobby, Conservative leaders like you are completely beholden to large corporations. Your so-called coalition is funded by the large corporations and they will give you directives with regard to every policy from here on out. You are their servant. You have no one to blame for this but yourself because you helped to create the corporate fascist state in which all of us -- radical leftists and Tea Partiers alike -- now live. You just didn't realize that the set-up might one day work against your base of simpleton voters. So, please, put down your dog whistle and give us all a break.
Bobby, Conservative leaders like you are completely beholden to large corporations. Your so-called coalition is funded by the large corporations and they will give you directives with regard to every policy from here on out. You are their servant. You have no one to blame for this but yourself because you helped to create the corporate fascist state in which all of us -- radical leftists and Tea Partiers alike -- now live. You just didn't realize that the set-up might one day work against your base of simpleton voters. So, please, put down your dog whistle and give us all a break.
3
Thank you governor, that was an important distinction that you made.
No one should be allowed to refuse business to someone on the basis of sexual orientation. But also, no one should be forced to participate in a religious ceremony that violates their conscience.
No one should be allowed to refuse business to someone on the basis of sexual orientation. But also, no one should be forced to participate in a religious ceremony that violates their conscience.
"Participate" as in being invited to the ceremony. Asked to give a toast, or give away the brides. Baking a cake is not "participating". If you can't see the distinction they you are going to have an awfully hard time parsing the flow of all goods and services from one party to another and deciding who "participates" and who does not. Otherwise I suppose the guy down at the flour plant has to also figure out if he is possibly participating in weddings he doesn't approve of too, and trace every speck of flour that he grinds.
1
An amazing turnaround in less than three years.
The man who said the GOP should stop "being the party of stupid" now personifies "the party of stupid".
And by the way, having lived in Louisiana, I can tell you it's an awful place to do business.
The man who said the GOP should stop "being the party of stupid" now personifies "the party of stupid".
And by the way, having lived in Louisiana, I can tell you it's an awful place to do business.
9
It's fascinating that one man can spout such a tremendous amount of ignorance and intolerance. But it's frightening that this man has his sights on the highest office in the land, the one that has been occupied by the likes of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Kennedy. In truth, Bobby Jindal doesn't have the intellectual heft to be dog-catcher. Surely the Republican party can do better.
3
In the twentieth century, Louisiana gave us David Duke. In the twenty first century, Louisiana gave us Bobby Jindal, who, like Duke, is an affront to decency.
But don't worry, Jindal is going nowhere fast except down in his never-ending spiral. An Op-Ed piece like this is the very shovel that Jindal is using to bury himself.
Today, Jindal garnered 1% support for his candidacy, according to the latest Quinnipiac poll. This opinion piece will assure he stays stuck down there in last place until he is bumped off the list altogether.
But don't worry, Jindal is going nowhere fast except down in his never-ending spiral. An Op-Ed piece like this is the very shovel that Jindal is using to bury himself.
Today, Jindal garnered 1% support for his candidacy, according to the latest Quinnipiac poll. This opinion piece will assure he stays stuck down there in last place until he is bumped off the list altogether.
5
I haven't been proud of IBM in a long time, until they came out against this bill.
As a catholic, mother, wife, and US citizen I get people can disagree on many issues but w all should be working on making our country better for every citizen. Somehow I would hope Bobby Jinal would worry more about the fact that his schools are in the bottom five when it comes to the quality of its education and the fact that your state ranks 7th in the number of people on food stamps or 18.67% of your population. I would think you would be spending your energies correcting those problems which are pretty severe.
As a catholic, mother, wife, and US citizen I get people can disagree on many issues but w all should be working on making our country better for every citizen. Somehow I would hope Bobby Jinal would worry more about the fact that his schools are in the bottom five when it comes to the quality of its education and the fact that your state ranks 7th in the number of people on food stamps or 18.67% of your population. I would think you would be spending your energies correcting those problems which are pretty severe.
3
Everyone should read "One Nation Under God" to understand how we got here. Time for the left to take back religion but based on the Social Gospel and not the fire and brimstone Old Testament retribution point of view.
And I am not religious.
And I am not religious.
1
The finest part of the TIMES is the overwhelming number of thoughtful and well-reasoned comments offered on various subjects. In this one instance I wish that the overwhelming number who disagree with the Governor, would call him out for exactly what his. But, this is a family paper, and the language and sentiments applicable to this horrid man are not fit to print.
5
I don't yet grasp how gun sellers aren't responsible for the mayhem their customers cause, while, under Jindal's reasoning, baked goods taken to a same-sex marriage constitute the bakers' 'participation' in the ceremony. This nonsense was, we thought, defeated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is informed by the extraordinary notion that to hold oneself out for the public's business is to hold oneself out for the public's business.
7
"Why shouldn’t an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony that violates a sincerely held religious belief?"
Here's the problem: You must define, codify, legislate and be able to enforce the term "sincerely held."
What is the distinction between a "sincerely held" belief and one that is less so? How about a belief that is sincerely held as a matter of convenience and circumstance dictate?
In other words, we have laws against bigotry and discrimination – however Jindal's position is such that if bigotry and discriminiation are proffered under the guise of a "sincerely held" religous belief – then all is good and there is no contradiction.
Here's the problem: You must define, codify, legislate and be able to enforce the term "sincerely held."
What is the distinction between a "sincerely held" belief and one that is less so? How about a belief that is sincerely held as a matter of convenience and circumstance dictate?
In other words, we have laws against bigotry and discrimination – however Jindal's position is such that if bigotry and discriminiation are proffered under the guise of a "sincerely held" religous belief – then all is good and there is no contradiction.
2
The only religious freedom that's at risk is your "freedom" to use the power of the state to force the rest of us to follow the rules of your religion. In the middle east, that's called Sharia. In the right-wing mind, it's called s liberty ... as long as it's the correct religion that's being enforced.
2
In the second paragraph, the question is asked, "Why shouldn't an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony that violates a sincerely held religious belief?" Well in this country what would happen if a baker didn't want to make a cake for a marriage between a white individual and a black individual? The baker wouldn't last and they would be sued for discrimination! Is religion an excuse to unequivocally discriminate against same-sex individuals? There is a separation of church and state in this country for a reason! Whether the laws open religion or constrict religion, no law should be made involving religion. If you want to provide goods or services in this country, you should not have the ability to discriminate on who you choose to serve.
2
Jindal's philosophical policies, persuasions and religiousness are as bankrupt and empty as the fiscal policies that he has pushed upon Louisiana the last 7 years. A state that was scraping the bottom is endeavoring to scrap even lower in Jindal's 'race to the bottom' in making Louisiana look backwards and regressive.
His political grandstanding, as of late, on gay marriage and the unnecessarily pushing of this religious protection bill are nothing but grandstanding at its finest. A signal to the deep-pocketed backer of the GOP that he can still be their man for 2016.
But a hard look at Jindal's messianic adherence to Grover Norquist's pledge to never raise taxes shows a man, deep in the grip of supply-side, crono-capitalism and one who is willing to bankrupt a state in order to give huge tax cuts to industries and individuals that don't need or want them.
Jindal has been and continues to be a pox on Louisiana and a perfect representation of the incoherent ideology that the GOP seems fit to embrace.
His political grandstanding, as of late, on gay marriage and the unnecessarily pushing of this religious protection bill are nothing but grandstanding at its finest. A signal to the deep-pocketed backer of the GOP that he can still be their man for 2016.
But a hard look at Jindal's messianic adherence to Grover Norquist's pledge to never raise taxes shows a man, deep in the grip of supply-side, crono-capitalism and one who is willing to bankrupt a state in order to give huge tax cuts to industries and individuals that don't need or want them.
Jindal has been and continues to be a pox on Louisiana and a perfect representation of the incoherent ideology that the GOP seems fit to embrace.
2
Jindal reaffirms that hatred and ignorance are taught, and it this case using his abhorrant interpretation of "Christianity". I do not see him railing against the American "Christian" missionaries who go to Africa to teach homophobia in the name of "God", leading to criminalization, imprisionment and death of those who he wants to discriminate against. But I guess he does not care about those people becasue they don't fit his definition of "Christian". It is even more infuriating that he forgets the recent pst, where someone of his skin color would have been discriminated against in the good old south.
6
Converts to a religion are widely known as most likely to be zealots. Jindal is a convert to Catholicism, a convert to an unusual brand of fundamentalist Catholicism, a convert to being American even up to changing his name to that of a character on the Brady Bunch, a convert to Creationism, and a convert to far right ideological economics. All of this is fact-free and entirely faith based.
Armchair psychoanalysts, have at it.
Armchair psychoanalysts, have at it.
5
Mr. Jindal refers to Christian individuals and businesses; corporations may be persons in the eye of the law, but nowhere in the Bible is there any suggestion that a business can also be a Christian entity. Christians are human people, period.
Conservative Christians have long promoted the idea that were Jesus here in person now, he would be a free-market capitalist and a Republican. That's basically what Mr. Jindal's piece here implies. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, we're all in for a surprise when we die; but for those conservatives who've added baggage such as Mr. Jindal's ideas to their faith, the extent to which they've distorted Christian theology will, at last, be horrifyingly apparent.
Conservative Christians have long promoted the idea that were Jesus here in person now, he would be a free-market capitalist and a Republican. That's basically what Mr. Jindal's piece here implies. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, we're all in for a surprise when we die; but for those conservatives who've added baggage such as Mr. Jindal's ideas to their faith, the extent to which they've distorted Christian theology will, at last, be horrifyingly apparent.
2
It is only recently that our laws were changed, and the enforcement of these new laws created scenarios that forced individuals to act in violation of their conscience.
In Hobby Lobby's case, the Affordable Care Act imposed on the company mandatory payment for all birth control methods. The owners, highly religious individuals, agreed to pay for all but two methods because they violated their religious beliefs. The court sided with the owners in a narrow decision.
In the case of the bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake, its situation arose out of the legalization of gay marriage. Its gay customers were frequent patrons and free to purchase any other product in the establishment. The owners considered participation in a gay wedding ceremony to be in violation of their religious beliefs on same sex marriage.
If not now, when do religious observers get to respond to the impact this new legislation has had on their ability to exercise their religious beliefs?
In Hobby Lobby's case, the Affordable Care Act imposed on the company mandatory payment for all birth control methods. The owners, highly religious individuals, agreed to pay for all but two methods because they violated their religious beliefs. The court sided with the owners in a narrow decision.
In the case of the bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake, its situation arose out of the legalization of gay marriage. Its gay customers were frequent patrons and free to purchase any other product in the establishment. The owners considered participation in a gay wedding ceremony to be in violation of their religious beliefs on same sex marriage.
If not now, when do religious observers get to respond to the impact this new legislation has had on their ability to exercise their religious beliefs?
1
A business that bakes a cake for my wedding is NOT a participant in my ceremony. The participants are limited to my family and friends. Period. Anyway, in my religion, the ceremony takes place in a church, where there is no cake-eating. The cake eating happens during the party that follows, which is different from a ceremony.
1
We do not need laws to protect the religious freedoms that we already have today! This is just stupid, excessive, pandering to the religious fundamentalists that are in our own country. Quit wasting time and pass some legislation that will benefit the economy and get big money out of politics. I need religious freedom protection like I need a hole in the head from somebody who has no conception of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution.
2
I find it amazing that Jindal, a person of color himself, is so desperate to advance his political career that he is willing to kowtow to the religious right to such a degree.
Actually I retract that last statement. As I reread Mr. Jindal's "opinion" piece I am suddenly struck that this has nothing to with convictions or faith and everything to do with campaigning. Unfortunately for the governor I think he has misjudged the tenor of the times. The pendulum is swinging the other way Mr. Jindal. We are not the "radical left", we are swiftly becoming the center and you and the "faith-driven" are becoming marginalized.
Actually I retract that last statement. As I reread Mr. Jindal's "opinion" piece I am suddenly struck that this has nothing to with convictions or faith and everything to do with campaigning. Unfortunately for the governor I think he has misjudged the tenor of the times. The pendulum is swinging the other way Mr. Jindal. We are not the "radical left", we are swiftly becoming the center and you and the "faith-driven" are becoming marginalized.
1
Just as we need to preserve the bones of dinosaurs and places of horror such as Auschwitz, we need a few Bobby Jindals, Fred Phelpses, Wayne LaPierres, and others of their ilk out there to remind us where we came from, and where we never want to return.
7
The arguments Jindal presents here are familiar contortions aimed at obscuring the nature of the problem and the grounds on which such "religious liberty" bills are based. Other commenters here have adequately parsed and discredited the logic and the spirit of Mr. Jindal's remarks.
I guess the governor imagines that when the Republican field of presidential contenders has thinned out and gotten that late-campaign fishy smell, he will suddenly be discovered by the right-wing as the candidate laureate, with this absurd piece of proposed legislation as his standard.
I guess the governor imagines that when the Republican field of presidential contenders has thinned out and gotten that late-campaign fishy smell, he will suddenly be discovered by the right-wing as the candidate laureate, with this absurd piece of proposed legislation as his standard.
2
Allowing businesses to discriminate over whom they serve should have chilling overtones to anybody with the slightest idea of what's gone on here in the South before the Civil Rights Acts when businesses were allowed not to serve blacks. As for those who talk about "sin," and don't want to serve "sinners," there are laws in the Bible prescribing stoning for wearing the wrong sort of garment or one with mixed fibers. Under those rules we're all guilty. Serving sinners is something American business has always done - and with enthusiasm.
1
Jesus taught that divorce and remarriage was wrong (while never addressing homosexuality). How many of those businesses whose owners have “sincere religious beliefs) refuse to provide services for second marriages or adulterers?
1
"A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us."
"If freedom is not for everyone then it is not freedom."
Read your own quotes Governor.
"If freedom is not for everyone then it is not freedom."
Read your own quotes Governor.
1
A baker can refuse to make a wedding cake when two adulterers marry or if he or she thinks the marriage is morally wrong for any other reason--unless it's a case of gay marriage. People should be able to opt out of supporting acts they believe to be immoral--whether it's serving pork, participating in a gay marriage, printing materials for a Republican dark money cause, to name a few situations. Why should anyone have to promote acts or causes they find immoral?
Proponents of these so-called "religious freedom" laws keep stating that the laws only allow businesses to refuse service for gay weddings but not for gay people.
Yet, most of these very states don't have any legal protections for people who are discriminated against because they are gay.
Yet, most of these very states don't have any legal protections for people who are discriminated against because they are gay.
And he will hold that view long after he leaves office, destined for the private sector, certainly never to be president. Maybe if one of his kids turns out to be Gay he'll change his tune, as often happens with folks having his views. But for now, as SNL would say, "buh bye."
The only ones who participate in a marriage ceremony are the bride, the groom, the person solemnizing the vows, and the friends/family they have chosen to stand with them, walk them down the aisle, etc. The caterer, the organist, the florist, the janitor who sweeps up after, these people are NOT participants.
2
You are entitled to your opinion, sir. But good luck with that attitude. Sure, you can hold on to your view and help a lot of people make money by introducing some kind of loophole law and calling it religious freedom. And in the end you can be proud that you're maybe the last person who stood tall and defied the "left-wing ideologues". Just as the Church stood strong when Galileo proved that the earth was orbiting the sun, instead of the other way round. And look, how well that worked. Or you could maybe try for personal growth and at some point start questioning the validity of your two-centuries-old beliefs. Because that's freedom too.
Governor Jindal is going to ride this dead horse off into a well-deserved oblivion after he manages to complete his total devastation of Louisianna's economy for the forseeable future.
5
Mr. Jindal clearly states that his views on this subject are "faith-driven." That means that these views are absolutely worthless in the public square. While we are all entitled to irrational musings in the privacy of our mind and place of worship, this kind of admitted non-thinking doesn't pass for governance in this country. Wow does he have it wrong.
5
Religion cannot be used to justify denying civil rights to others. Jindal simply continues the Republican war on logic.
5
My religion prevents me from associating with Indians who have recently converted to Christianity, or doing any business with them.
2
Does anyone who is against same sex marriage truly believe that they believe as they do because the Bible tells them to? I've become convinced over the years that the answer is 'no'; they are against SSM because of the ick factor, and the Bible provides (in their opinion, provides) the justification.
I don't even have to spell out what the "ick factor" is, because they know exactly what I'm talking about.
There are far too many prohibitions in the Bible that are completely ignored for me to believe this is a coincidence. They don't inspire "icky thoughts", so there's no reason to care about them.
I don't even have to spell out what the "ick factor" is, because they know exactly what I'm talking about.
There are far too many prohibitions in the Bible that are completely ignored for me to believe this is a coincidence. They don't inspire "icky thoughts", so there's no reason to care about them.
7
And with this, Mr. Jindal begins a long, uphill battle back to national relevancy.
Fighting for corporate interests by fighting against corporate interests? Sounds like your talking point generator is broken, Mr. Jindal.
Fighting for corporate interests by fighting against corporate interests? Sounds like your talking point generator is broken, Mr. Jindal.
3
In this op-ed posture, Gov. Jindal has almost finished abandoning the gubernatorial duties for which he was elected. Because the state's budget is in such bad shape, LSU and other state university systems are preparing to declare financial exigency to adjust to a final huge budget cut. Leadership has abdicated its duties.
3
According to Mr. Jindal, "Our country was founded on the principle of religious liberty, enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Why shouldn’t an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony that violates a sincerely held religious belief?"
Oh, that again? You mean, like it's against people's religious beliefs to rent motel rooms to black people because the Bible says that slavery is okay? Or it's against people's religious beliefs to serve an interracial couple because Genesis says that fish and fowl can't procreate together -- you know, the old "unto its kind" thing?
Here's what I propose for the religions that Mr. Jindal holds dear:
Let's tax them: every little storefront Pentecostal church and every little living-room shul in America. Let's tax the megachurches and billionaire radio preachers, as well as their outreach programs.
Let's tax the Word of Life riding stables and sailing schools -- oh, I mean "retreats" -- up in the Adirondacks with their hundreds (and thousands?) of lakefront acres. Let's tax the holdings of the Catholic church too.
How about Scientology?
All these exclusive clubs use our municipal services and don't pay a dime for them. Any clever tax-dodger in the United States can claim that his home is a church and his family his parishioners. And then they can go disrupt our soldiers' funerals.
But gosh, they're religious, don't you know?
Oh, that again? You mean, like it's against people's religious beliefs to rent motel rooms to black people because the Bible says that slavery is okay? Or it's against people's religious beliefs to serve an interracial couple because Genesis says that fish and fowl can't procreate together -- you know, the old "unto its kind" thing?
Here's what I propose for the religions that Mr. Jindal holds dear:
Let's tax them: every little storefront Pentecostal church and every little living-room shul in America. Let's tax the megachurches and billionaire radio preachers, as well as their outreach programs.
Let's tax the Word of Life riding stables and sailing schools -- oh, I mean "retreats" -- up in the Adirondacks with their hundreds (and thousands?) of lakefront acres. Let's tax the holdings of the Catholic church too.
How about Scientology?
All these exclusive clubs use our municipal services and don't pay a dime for them. Any clever tax-dodger in the United States can claim that his home is a church and his family his parishioners. And then they can go disrupt our soldiers' funerals.
But gosh, they're religious, don't you know?
2
Many thanks to the editorial board for carrying this piece, primarily because I disagree with almost every sentence in it. I really do appreciate hearing diverse opinions. Please continue to present that diversity in your editorial section.
"Those who believe in freedom must stick together" as must those that believe in justice, equality, fairness, civil discourse and rational policy that isn't thinly veiled hate hiding behind cherry picked snippets of superstitions.
That freedom is ever absolute is a child's notion, sir. That this issue doesn't merit it's exception is bigotry.
Understand, that Americans are at their root caring people, and if your God does exist, you'll answer at the polls as well in your afterlife.
That freedom is ever absolute is a child's notion, sir. That this issue doesn't merit it's exception is bigotry.
Understand, that Americans are at their root caring people, and if your God does exist, you'll answer at the polls as well in your afterlife.
If the Governor has his way, we will see religions popping up that not only glorify discrimination against gays, but also women, African-Americans, and yes perhaps even Indian-Americans.
First time I've heard "standing up for equal rights and against discrimination" called bullying. I imagine it won't be the last.
Jindal claims that shifts in public opinions about same-sex marriage causes "the potential for discrimination against Christian individuals and businesses that comes with these shifts," apparently because such shifts make those "Christian individuals and businesses" into minorities. And we should not be able to discriminate against minorities. I see.
With the threat of needing a lawyer and fighting in court as the hoop to be jumped through to attain equal treatment by businesses operating in the public marketplace, there is no real difference between what you propose and what a business owner's middle finger proposes.
There is great irony in the fact that the British treated Indians as lesser because they imagined them inferior.
You sir, are just a heartbeat away from being segregated into an Indian's only ghetto. How ironic you choose to prey on and denigrate others for something equally beyond their control.
And it was your precious bible that allowed the the moral certitude that brown people were inferior. And yes I'm aware Indians are Caucasian. But the British at the time were not.
You sir, are just a heartbeat away from being segregated into an Indian's only ghetto. How ironic you choose to prey on and denigrate others for something equally beyond their control.
And it was your precious bible that allowed the the moral certitude that brown people were inferior. And yes I'm aware Indians are Caucasian. But the British at the time were not.
"Not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony" has clearly become the chosen rhetoric to magically transform narrow-minded bigotry into a cherished religious belief protected by the Constitution. If it weren't so sad, you'd have to laugh. "No, I can't sell you this cake, because I would then be participating in your same-sex marriage ceremony." Just think of all the many sins these bakers must be participating in through their cakes (not to mention their minds and bodies.)
1
All I have to say is 27%. That is the approval rating of governor Jindal by the free people of Louisiana.
3
One comment, "A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us. " argues against everything else he says!
2
"Radical Left", "Radical Liberals", "Hollywood", "Liberal Media", "Left Wing Idealogues" - this OpEd reads like hysterical gibberish and the tone is unbecoming of an aspirant to the White House. Most Americans and most young conservatives are not for sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Evangelical Christians can adopt. They can serve in the military, The can marry. They cannot be fired from their workplace on the basis of them being a Christian. They can give blood. They can be Scout Leaders. There is not a single form of legally sanctioned discrimination that is permitted against Christians on the basis of their faith.
If anyone should be crying about discrimination it is the gays and lesbians that this Governor and the whole GOP have been bashing for years in campaigns and legislation. The LGBT has now just barely started winning some of those basic rights noted above.
I have little time for old-fashioned bigotry.
Evangelical Christians can adopt. They can serve in the military, The can marry. They cannot be fired from their workplace on the basis of them being a Christian. They can give blood. They can be Scout Leaders. There is not a single form of legally sanctioned discrimination that is permitted against Christians on the basis of their faith.
If anyone should be crying about discrimination it is the gays and lesbians that this Governor and the whole GOP have been bashing for years in campaigns and legislation. The LGBT has now just barely started winning some of those basic rights noted above.
I have little time for old-fashioned bigotry.
5
Governor Jindal writes, "The bill does not, as opponents assert, create a right to discriminate against, or generally refuse service to, gay men or lesbians."
Then what DOES it do? Isn't the whole point that some businesses want to refuse services to certain clients, and claim it is for religious reasons? Is your bill not intended to allow them to refuse that service? Put aside the rights and wrongs for a minute... I am genuinely confused about what this bill permits if it is not different treatment for some citizens over others. And I find it interesting that the governor took the trouble to write this whole opinion piece, and never explains this.
Then what DOES it do? Isn't the whole point that some businesses want to refuse services to certain clients, and claim it is for religious reasons? Is your bill not intended to allow them to refuse that service? Put aside the rights and wrongs for a minute... I am genuinely confused about what this bill permits if it is not different treatment for some citizens over others. And I find it interesting that the governor took the trouble to write this whole opinion piece, and never explains this.
4
Let's be absolutely clear that these bills have nothing to do with 'protecting religious freedom.' They are about protecting bigots who do not understand that life in a democracy means they are not allowed to discriminate against their fellow Americans on the basis of race, gender, or sexuality.
People are entitled to all the medieval cobwebby notions their little brainpans can hold. They are not entitled to open a public business and decide not to serve people of color, or seat women in a separate area, or refuse to serve a customer because he is gay.
If you don't get this, you should not be living here, you should not be pontificating online, and you sure as hell should not be in any public office.
People are entitled to all the medieval cobwebby notions their little brainpans can hold. They are not entitled to open a public business and decide not to serve people of color, or seat women in a separate area, or refuse to serve a customer because he is gay.
If you don't get this, you should not be living here, you should not be pontificating online, and you sure as hell should not be in any public office.
4
It is the height of ignorance to lambast gay marriage while praising our "pluralist and diverse" society in the same breath. Just stop.
2
Gov. Jindal, religious liberty starts and ends at the door to the church. Any bullying going on is at the hands of people who think their they can impose their religion-sanctioned practices on people not of their own faith.
2
Mr. Jindal is either waxing seriously melodramatic or Louisiana is under attack by some kind of alien "ideologues".
When living in Louisiana I never met anyone who thought folks should be prohibited from engaging in any legal ideology they chose, political, religious or otherwise. "Ideologues who oppose religious freedom" were not in evidence then and I have not heard of any recently. You could preach and pray yourself silly, or not, and nobody seemed to care much either way.
Jindal claims these same ideologues "seek to tax and regulate businesses out of existence". Is Bobby just stressed out?
So apparently these "ideologues" want to destroy their own jobs and families along with all goods and services, the state plus religion, all in one lick?
Bobby, bless his little pea picking heart, he does need help and I wish him well in therapy.
When living in Louisiana I never met anyone who thought folks should be prohibited from engaging in any legal ideology they chose, political, religious or otherwise. "Ideologues who oppose religious freedom" were not in evidence then and I have not heard of any recently. You could preach and pray yourself silly, or not, and nobody seemed to care much either way.
Jindal claims these same ideologues "seek to tax and regulate businesses out of existence". Is Bobby just stressed out?
So apparently these "ideologues" want to destroy their own jobs and families along with all goods and services, the state plus religion, all in one lick?
Bobby, bless his little pea picking heart, he does need help and I wish him well in therapy.
2
Haha, another pathetic right-winger whining about how conservatives are constantly being discriminated against. Yet he feels the need to gloat about how conservatives have had a winning streak in elections. Well, which is it, Piyush? What a ridiculous waste of column inches.
4
Dear Mr. Jindal,
Traditional Biblical marriage is between a man and several wives. Heck, I can even have as many concubines on the side as I can afford. And what the heck, throw in a few virgin slave girls that I have captured in war after I put all of their fathers, mothers, brothers and older sisters to death. I hope you don't plan on discriminating against my marriage choice.
Traditional Biblical marriage is between a man and several wives. Heck, I can even have as many concubines on the side as I can afford. And what the heck, throw in a few virgin slave girls that I have captured in war after I put all of their fathers, mothers, brothers and older sisters to death. I hope you don't plan on discriminating against my marriage choice.
7
Every time America goes to war, it violates my religious beliefs as a pacifist and member of a peace church (Quakers). Does Gov Jindal support my right to withhold that portion of my taxes that would have gone to support the US war efforts?
6
Interesting mix of hyperbole and paranoia. This piece sounds more like the rant of an ideologue than the considered opinions of a statesman.
2
One thing I do not understand in this debate about religious freedom and gay marriage: if a caterer or florist can refuse to serve gay clients, cannot the member of one religion refuse to serve clients who belong to a different religion that he/she does not believe in? Why should a Jewish caterer "participate" in a Christian wedding where belief in Jesus is a central tenet of marriage? Why should a Christian florist be required to provide flowers for a "heathen" Hindu wedding? Mr. Jindal seems to have conveniently forgotten that there was a time when interracial marriage was condemned for religious reasons and slavery upheld by reference to the Bible. I think Mr. Jindal's gay marriage preoccupation is perhaps a handy smokescreen for reintroducing religious and racial discrimination into law.
6
Wow, the Governor loves freedom! I'm for it!
Except...he doesn't appear to love "liberal elites" and businesses such as Apple, exercising their freedom to not do business with Louisiana. No doubt he also doesn't support the freedom of the majority of Americans to avoid that state in the form of boycotts etc., or even speak out against this legislation. And never mind the millions of people, who according to their own religion, find his religious interpretations antithetical to theirs.
Note: shame on the times for publishing what we all know to be a political ad for his run for the presidency. A campaign that is doomed anyway due to that pesky "freedom" our constitutional framers gave us to toss people like him into the dustbins of history.
Except...he doesn't appear to love "liberal elites" and businesses such as Apple, exercising their freedom to not do business with Louisiana. No doubt he also doesn't support the freedom of the majority of Americans to avoid that state in the form of boycotts etc., or even speak out against this legislation. And never mind the millions of people, who according to their own religion, find his religious interpretations antithetical to theirs.
Note: shame on the times for publishing what we all know to be a political ad for his run for the presidency. A campaign that is doomed anyway due to that pesky "freedom" our constitutional framers gave us to toss people like him into the dustbins of history.
5
You don't often see the words "intellectual underpinning" and "Louisiana" in the same article, and guys like Jindal are the reason why. Louisiana deserves better than a pandering pol who blathers about "liberty" and makes a show of "standing firm" against a tide that has already turned. While Jindal postures, problems that actually affect peoples' lives are going unaddressed.
3
Why do you give this right-wing sycophant a forum to spew his drivel in a respectable (I have always thought) publication? There are other people with substantial credentials and no political agenda who may hold the same view (not that it's right or justified) and are far more credible than Bobby Jindal. A total waste of space.
1
What a disingenuous argument all the way around. I expect nothing less from Bobby Jindal former biology major who never heard of evolution. Lets replace the word gay with the word black in all your arguments. Then we get back to Jim Crow. Your religious beliefs don't give you a right to discriminate in a place of business.
7
Here's the problem with this entire point of view, it insists being gay is a choice. Those who oppose same-sex marriage do so mostly because they whole-heartedly believe someone chooses a life of difficulty and ridicule. The notion that someone could be born with an attraction toward the same-sex (something that's a common occurrence in all creatures we know to exist) is impossible to comprehend. I knew I was gay at age 6. It wasn't until I was 8 that I realized it wasn't "normal," or at 10 that there was actually a name for it. Shortly after that there were MANY names, mostly slurs. We wouldn't be having this conversation if people opposed to equality and rights would simply realize and accept that we don't CHOOSE to be gay - we don't CHOOSE to lose rights, protections, and, often, respect. This is inherently who we are. We're here, we exist.
8
I happen to be queer and in favour of marriage equality, but again, we have a flimsy argument- born this way.
For one thing, there is a distinction between being gay and acting on your predisposition, which - unless you are mentally ill and in the grip of a compulsion - you do choose. There's also good evidence that other predispositions, including paedophilia, have a 'born this way' element. Moreover, marriage is clearly more than a mere permit to fornicate, and some hetero married couples stay together well after ceasing to have sex with each other, or even at all.
Point 2: I find the 'we can't help it' argument to be faintly insulting. 'We don't choose to be this way' implies that if we could choose, we would choose otherwise. Some of us undoubtedly would, but most, I expect, would not.
Marriage equality has nothing whatsoever to do with 'born this way' and the sooner we ditch that argument and rely instead solely on principles of law, equity, and civil rights.
Marriage equality is the right thing to do because the gender of the participants entering into a civil marriage contract is irrelevant to its underlying purpose, which is to form a stable domestic unit, with or without children. There is no good logical ground to deny a marriage license to two men, or two women, based simply on their genitalia.
There. See how easy that is?
For one thing, there is a distinction between being gay and acting on your predisposition, which - unless you are mentally ill and in the grip of a compulsion - you do choose. There's also good evidence that other predispositions, including paedophilia, have a 'born this way' element. Moreover, marriage is clearly more than a mere permit to fornicate, and some hetero married couples stay together well after ceasing to have sex with each other, or even at all.
Point 2: I find the 'we can't help it' argument to be faintly insulting. 'We don't choose to be this way' implies that if we could choose, we would choose otherwise. Some of us undoubtedly would, but most, I expect, would not.
Marriage equality has nothing whatsoever to do with 'born this way' and the sooner we ditch that argument and rely instead solely on principles of law, equity, and civil rights.
Marriage equality is the right thing to do because the gender of the participants entering into a civil marriage contract is irrelevant to its underlying purpose, which is to form a stable domestic unit, with or without children. There is no good logical ground to deny a marriage license to two men, or two women, based simply on their genitalia.
There. See how easy that is?
Corporate America has already made a decision, Governor. It has decided to stand on the right side of history, against thinly-veiled discrimination and bigotry and wholly unveiled demagoguery.
10
I think all these people that are worried about 'participating' in a gay wedding that they don't approve of or allowing gay customers to patronize their businesses should pass out a 'morality questionaire' to make sure that ALL person(s) that patronize their businesses are not in conflict with their 'religious beliefs'. Here is a suggestion, hang the 10 commandments on the wall and don't serve anyone who has broken one of them. Let's see how long you stay in business.
8
If any two people of the same sex want to get married, it has no effect on me whatsoever. Nada, none, zero, zip. It's none of my business and I don't care. It's tiresome to be continually subjected to the issue by clowns like Bobby Jindal.
10
Bobby Jindal, please read "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" by Bart D. Erman, religious and biblical scholar. You will perhaps finally understand that there are NO original writings, manuscripts, texts of any kind related to the bible. They are all copies and/or (mis) translations handed down over the centuries. To paraphrase Erman (a Liberty graduate and former evangelical), if God has wanted us to know his words he would have made them permanently available to all, copy and translation free. He hasn't.
2
Gov. Jindal: "A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us."
Exactly. So then why are you laboring so strenuously on behalf of the intolerant?
Exactly. So then why are you laboring so strenuously on behalf of the intolerant?
3
"Bully" is a strange label to give to a corporation asking for equality before the law. Instead it's a lot closer to the role those given "religious freedom" will have in your bill with respect to gay and lesbian couples.
Let's take a different straw man argument and make it personal for you, Governor Jindal. Imagine someone refused to bake a cake if your daughter were to marry a white man because he was opposed to interracial marriage. How would you feel?
For many years in the past in the south (and even continuing today), religious arguments have been made against such marriages. Today we view that religious argument as thin veneer covering pure bigotry. If you're fine with someone refusing services to an interracial marriage of one of your children, go ahead and add interracial marriage explicitly to this bill--then at least it will be a principled one and the underlying motivations made explicit.
Let's take a different straw man argument and make it personal for you, Governor Jindal. Imagine someone refused to bake a cake if your daughter were to marry a white man because he was opposed to interracial marriage. How would you feel?
For many years in the past in the south (and even continuing today), religious arguments have been made against such marriages. Today we view that religious argument as thin veneer covering pure bigotry. If you're fine with someone refusing services to an interracial marriage of one of your children, go ahead and add interracial marriage explicitly to this bill--then at least it will be a principled one and the underlying motivations made explicit.
1
Conservatives love market solutions. Except when the market favors employment policies that protect gays. Do they think we don't see right through the hypocrisy?
3
"Religious liberty" is not under threat. Any religion that wants to refuse people marriage may do so.
Businesses, licensed by civil society, must not discriminate. That is civil law.
Religion has nothing to do with civil law - thank God!
Businesses, licensed by civil society, must not discriminate. That is civil law.
Religion has nothing to do with civil law - thank God!
6
Yes such hypocrisy. I don't believe Jesus said love the neighbor, except for gay people. Equally appalling is their blindness to their own narrow mindedness and inability to see how their "religious liberty" hurts people. I plan to stay away from Louisiana!
1
When you enter the public sphere with your business, you are expected to serve the public without discrimination. If your religion doesn't allow you to serve the entire public, don't open a business.
Secondly, there is no attack on your 'religious liberty'. You conservatives like to throw around that phrase like it has some magical republican voodoo powers. I know it's useful for riling up your simpleton voter base, but it's completely groundless in reality. You have the right to practice any religion you wish, but that does not include the right to step on the rights of others. Therefore, again, if that means have some you have some twisted 'moral' reason why you cannot do business with someone, then don't open a business. And specifically don't open a marriage related business in a state where gay marriage is legal.
The funny thing is, there's a simple solution to your problems. Just get rid of the tax advantages for married couples. Then the state won't have to recognize marriages, and there won't be gay people applying for marriage licenses. Marriage would be purely the religious act that you pretend you want it to be, and there wouldn't be any gay couples receiving your tax advantages, which is the real reason behind your vitriol.
Secondly, there is no attack on your 'religious liberty'. You conservatives like to throw around that phrase like it has some magical republican voodoo powers. I know it's useful for riling up your simpleton voter base, but it's completely groundless in reality. You have the right to practice any religion you wish, but that does not include the right to step on the rights of others. Therefore, again, if that means have some you have some twisted 'moral' reason why you cannot do business with someone, then don't open a business. And specifically don't open a marriage related business in a state where gay marriage is legal.
The funny thing is, there's a simple solution to your problems. Just get rid of the tax advantages for married couples. Then the state won't have to recognize marriages, and there won't be gay people applying for marriage licenses. Marriage would be purely the religious act that you pretend you want it to be, and there wouldn't be any gay couples receiving your tax advantages, which is the real reason behind your vitriol.
4
No, sir, the business community of this great nation will not endorse your mean-spirited, discriminatory, and downright hostile legislature. We will not stand shoulder to shoulder with those supporting a nefarious, marginal, and unethical agenda. We will, by contrast, put our enormous weight and incomparable financial muscle behind those legislators who do not seek to force their radical and antiquated religious doctrines onto the market.
We will do what is ethical, we will do what is just, we will do what is right, and we will succeed.
We will do what is ethical, we will do what is just, we will do what is right, and we will succeed.
4
This kind of Orwellian nonsensicl talk about having to defend religious freedom reveals an arrogant position of a privileged minority that feels it can force their opinion about marriage on a majority that would much rather have freedom from religion and equality for all. Nobody is forced hereby to marry someone of the same sex! 'To live and let live' is still the best and simplest guidline to be practiced in this situation.
5
Most of my family of origin still lives in a red state in the Bible Belt. I've been told by them that they are being prosecuted because they are Christian. By who? It can only be other Christians. They need these laws to protect themselves from others just like themselves.
The conservatives are running out of reasons to hate. Hopefully, this is the bottom of the barrel.
The conservatives are running out of reasons to hate. Hopefully, this is the bottom of the barrel.
1
Jindal came, courageously faced and endured the New York Times liberal crowd, and emerges therefore as a better Republican Candidate for President. That is the game Jindal is playing.
Jindal knows he has no chance of being President so he's auditioning for a spot on Fox News or at some liberal think tank.
Thank you, Governor Jindal, for your courage. Knowing the intolerance of most NYT readers and the kind of vitriol that you would receive (as evidenced by the comments), you offered a well-reasoned defense for freedom. (I expect a bit of the same in response to my dispassionate comment here.)
Yours was no call for discrimination. It was a call for tolerance. It was no call for indoctrination. It was a call for respect for the religiously-informed conscience. RFRA laws (Federal and State) have been used numerous times to buttress the protections of the First Amendment against the government assaults on religious liberties. I'm for Native American Robert Soto's religious right to use eagle feathers in his religious rites. I'm for Sikh Kawal Tagore's religious right to carry a kirpan. I'm for Muslim Abdul Muhammad's religious right to grow a half inch beard. These are just some of the cases where the government has sought to infringe upon the free exercise of religion, and where RFRA laws have supported their cases.
RFRA laws are no "license to discriminate." Where citizens have sought to argue them when the government has a "compelling governmental interest" and it's the "least restrictive way to accomplish it," individuals have lost in court. Indeed, can anyone demonstrate where has a RFRA law been used to legitimize discrimination? But shouldn't religious persons have the right to make their case in court? I think so, and I think all freedom-loving citizens should.
Yours was no call for discrimination. It was a call for tolerance. It was no call for indoctrination. It was a call for respect for the religiously-informed conscience. RFRA laws (Federal and State) have been used numerous times to buttress the protections of the First Amendment against the government assaults on religious liberties. I'm for Native American Robert Soto's religious right to use eagle feathers in his religious rites. I'm for Sikh Kawal Tagore's religious right to carry a kirpan. I'm for Muslim Abdul Muhammad's religious right to grow a half inch beard. These are just some of the cases where the government has sought to infringe upon the free exercise of religion, and where RFRA laws have supported their cases.
RFRA laws are no "license to discriminate." Where citizens have sought to argue them when the government has a "compelling governmental interest" and it's the "least restrictive way to accomplish it," individuals have lost in court. Indeed, can anyone demonstrate where has a RFRA law been used to legitimize discrimination? But shouldn't religious persons have the right to make their case in court? I think so, and I think all freedom-loving citizens should.
2
None of your examples of religious liberty affect anyone else or deny a service otherwise available to other members of the public.
Yours was no call for discrimination. It was a call for tolerance.
You have been blinded by your religion. You are perfectly free to hate me in your heart, your home and your church. You are NOT free to hate me in the public square. That you find your begging the government to support your hate is ANYTHING but "dispassionate" would be hilarious if not so dangerous. But that is the tack that you haters always take ins't it. You hate with nicer words.
You have been blinded by your religion. You are perfectly free to hate me in your heart, your home and your church. You are NOT free to hate me in the public square. That you find your begging the government to support your hate is ANYTHING but "dispassionate" would be hilarious if not so dangerous. But that is the tack that you haters always take ins't it. You hate with nicer words.
And I won't let someone's backwards religious interpretations interfere with my own beliefs and rights as a US citizen.
5
NYT: why have you been started giving this ridiculous man column space lately? The writing style exemplifies the disingenuous rhetoric that this side brings to most debates nowadays: deliberately inflammatory characterizations of anyone who does not share his opinion in its entirety, cynically and sententiously couched in the language of oppression and the victim. This is not an attempt to persuade or inform, merely belligerent grandstanding to a demographic that already jealously guards its opinion on this matter.
8
The problem is always the theocracy. Governor Jindal is saying that it is his right or freedom to discriminate against others in the public square, because of his religious beliefs, and this man wants to be President.
5
Wow. Yes, let's stick with two centuries of precedence for establishing laws. Take the vote away from women. And enslave some folks! Wrong side of history, Governor.
6
I went to a convention in New Orleans a few years ago and enjoyed my time in one of our country's most vibrant (and gayest) cities — along with the hundreds of others who attended, stayed in hotels, ate and drank in local restaurants and bought local goods. It saddens me that if Jindal's backward-looking legislation passes I will never visit again, because, my freedom, enshrined by the constitution, allows me to choose in which cities and states I spend my money.
10
I am a small business owner. I am also an athiest. Should I be allowed to refuse services to people of faith because I find their faith offensive to my beliefs? Maybe. But I wouldn't because to me, that would be bigoted and morally wrong.
7
Mr. Jindal admits that his position is becoming the minority one and then asserts that his opponents can't win at the ballot box. I don't suppose gerrymandering and voter suppression might have something to do with this state of affairs.
10
What would the Democrats do without straw men to explain why their own party members do not even vote? Even Obama's narrow win in 2008 was an anomaly based on an accident of birth, his race.
Why oh why is the New York Times printing a collection of campaign sound-bites by Governor Jindal as an op-ed piece? "Since I became governor in 2008, Louisiana has become one of the best places to do business in America. I made it a priority to cut taxes, reform our ethics laws," etc. etc. And what do these statements have to do with the supposed topic at hand? I expect thoughtful contributions, not political drivel, on the op-ed pages. Please exercise some editorial judgment as to whether the politician du jour actually has something to say before you publish his or her slogans on your editorial pages.
6
Last week the NYT printed an Op-ed by a prevaricating Iranian government tale-teller, and not long before that an Op-ed by the Liberals' bete noir, John Bolton. That's what journalistic integrity requires, dissimilar Op-Eds to present opposing views.
During the Revolutionary War, conservatives were called "Tories."
Conservatives, in the end, are always on the wrong side of history.
Conservatives, in the end, are always on the wrong side of history.
2
'Conservatives, in the end, are always on the wrong side of history.'
Would that include Winston Churchill?
I have no hope at this point, even if my comment does run (and so far I'm 0 for no idea how many) it won't get read.
I happen to be strongly in favour of marriage equality. But for heaven's sake, people, can't we make the best possible arguments?
Would that include Winston Churchill?
I have no hope at this point, even if my comment does run (and so far I'm 0 for no idea how many) it won't get read.
I happen to be strongly in favour of marriage equality. But for heaven's sake, people, can't we make the best possible arguments?
This very odd fellow serves brilliantly, as a distraction.
2
"Our country was founded on the principle of religious liberty,enriched in Bill of rights"-Jindal quote but ignores to understand & practice it in true sense. It's about rights & liberty of every individual to be free from anyone else's ideology based upon theocratic organizations run by few organized groups to control masses & rule them for funds under fear mongering practices on name of God no one ever have been with. Jindal is just trying to access their votes to cling to political power for own comfort & ego on name of freedom while carrying less for poverty stricken people in own state he is ruling now.
2
Supporting same sex marriage is not radical; half the nation does. Cognizant of that, I suppose it is more radical to oppose gay marriage.
Mr. Jindal should save his breath as the Supreme Court will likely settle the issue, sanctioning same sex unions, in a few months.
Mr. Jindal should save his breath as the Supreme Court will likely settle the issue, sanctioning same sex unions, in a few months.
2
If a law allows a business serving the public to refuse service to a married couple based on the spouses being of he same sex, then that law allows discrimination based on sexual orientation because relationships with members of the same sex are intrinsic to being gay or bisexual. This is what defenders of these "religious freedom" laws either don't understand or hope to obfuscate.
"Religious freedom" means you can believe and practice whatever you choose in you religion, but that freedom ends at the cash register when it comes to discriminating against people based on who they are.
"Religious freedom" means you can believe and practice whatever you choose in you religion, but that freedom ends at the cash register when it comes to discriminating against people based on who they are.
1
So corporations and liberals are trying to mess with God's divine marriage plan. This is just like of some of the old pro-slavery arguments from the 1800's--that it is God's divine order that white people should rule over the inferior races, and how dare people mess with that.
(You'd think Jindal, who is of Indian descent, would see the similarity. Alas, bigotry is blind.)
(You'd think Jindal, who is of Indian descent, would see the similarity. Alas, bigotry is blind.)
2
This, ladies and gentleman, is the face of fascism. Raw hatred and bigotry cloaked in a completely ridiculous appeal to religious "freedom."
2
Just needs to wrap it in the American flag for the final touch!
What GOP candidate is going to get space on these pages to make Jindal's same argument while adding how patriotic it is to hold firm!
What GOP candidate is going to get space on these pages to make Jindal's same argument while adding how patriotic it is to hold firm!
Query: if corporations believe in God do they get to go to heaven when they die? Will the Pearly Gates open onto a plaza with the Golden Arches and a Hobby Lobby store? Do they also get to assert their rights to the Sacraments- can the corporation take communion and will they receive the last rites when they die, or have other corporations sit shiva and bring over something sweet?
Sarcastic yes, but this ridiculous scenario is exactly what Jindal's idiotic assertion of religious rights for corporations would logically amount to. How in the world can a business have religious rights when it is a legal and economic entity, not a person? The whole piece is nothing but stupidity and sophistry, dressed up with righteousness. Brown University must be proud.
What in the world is up with the Ivies these days, anyway? Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, and now this one, holding firm to oppression in the name of religion (which if you really do believe in Jesus Christ is a sin). All of these guys rose from obscure origins, gaining admission to elite schools only to advance their own raw ambitions, using their primitive religions to bash other people over the heads. An American type, and not an attractive one. Calling Mark Twain - this would have been perfect fodder for his incisive humor.
Sarcastic yes, but this ridiculous scenario is exactly what Jindal's idiotic assertion of religious rights for corporations would logically amount to. How in the world can a business have religious rights when it is a legal and economic entity, not a person? The whole piece is nothing but stupidity and sophistry, dressed up with righteousness. Brown University must be proud.
What in the world is up with the Ivies these days, anyway? Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, and now this one, holding firm to oppression in the name of religion (which if you really do believe in Jesus Christ is a sin). All of these guys rose from obscure origins, gaining admission to elite schools only to advance their own raw ambitions, using their primitive religions to bash other people over the heads. An American type, and not an attractive one. Calling Mark Twain - this would have been perfect fodder for his incisive humor.
1
According to the fool Bobby Jindal and his epigones anyone with a religious belief can discriminate against any other person if their religious beliefs are contrary to the beliefs of this other person. To prevent this type of discrimination and social disorder our Constitution has the Establishment Clause in the Bill of Rights . Bobby Jindal and those who act on his idea of freedom of religion are breakers of the Constitution and should be prosecuted in a Federal Court.
1
"We control nearly 70 percent of state legislative chambers, the highest proportion since at least 1900." Read, "Our gerrymandering worked, Yay!!"
3
Just wait for the kind of discrimination he advocates, should he actually become a contender for the nomination.
Why shouldn’t an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a marrying off their 11-year-old daughter to a 30-year-old man, when it's a sincerely held religious belief?
Why shouldn't an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for stoning to death a woman who had an affair, when it's a sincerely held religious belief?
Why shouldn't an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for having slaves, when it's a sincerely held religious belief?
Why shouldn't an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony that violates a sincerely held religious belief?
Why shouldn't an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for stoning to death a woman who had an affair, when it's a sincerely held religious belief?
Why shouldn't an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for having slaves, when it's a sincerely held religious belief?
Why shouldn't an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony that violates a sincerely held religious belief?
2
How exactly does baking a cake for a gay wedding unduly burden someone's religious beliefs? Does it prevent someone from praying? Does it prevent a Christian from going to heaven to provide service to a non-believer? Does it even prevent someone from believing that Gay Marriage is a sin? The answer is an unequivocal no. Corporate America has made a decision and they unlike the party of exclusion have decided to come down on the right side of history. Years ago the same arguments were used in the South to keep Jim Crowe in place. Congrats governor, you proved yourself a willing and enthusiastic member of the "Party of Stupid" to use your words.
4
Jindal knows his electorate even if he doesn't know his state. LA is indeed very friendly toward business. Yet LA rates 48th in education, has the lowest rank for household income, and is among the bottom 10 states for quality of life. No surprise that its residents make a chew-toy of LGBT folk and Jindal follows suit.
1
Not once in this bit of pandering to the hard hard right does Bobby Jindal express opposition to discrimination against gay people. Not once does he say that "religious freedom" is the freedom not to participate in gay marriages, but it's not the freedom to discriminate against people.
And like most of the right wing ideologues fighting desperately for the freedom not to serve cake at gay weddings, he doesn't say exactly where in his faith all this is rooted. The English translations of the Bible are all actually no more emphatic about man not laying with man than they are about a man being able to own slaves, or stone his own wife or daughter to death. In other words, why is gay marriage so important to people who believe in the literal truth of the words of the Bible (which has been translated from the Greek which was translated from the Aramaic), but the right to stone unbelievers isn't?
And, if the argument is going to be that, as a society, we've evolved passed stoning, then why can't we evolve passed the hatred of gay people as well?
And like most of the right wing ideologues fighting desperately for the freedom not to serve cake at gay weddings, he doesn't say exactly where in his faith all this is rooted. The English translations of the Bible are all actually no more emphatic about man not laying with man than they are about a man being able to own slaves, or stone his own wife or daughter to death. In other words, why is gay marriage so important to people who believe in the literal truth of the words of the Bible (which has been translated from the Greek which was translated from the Aramaic), but the right to stone unbelievers isn't?
And, if the argument is going to be that, as a society, we've evolved passed stoning, then why can't we evolve passed the hatred of gay people as well?
2
1. Reserving the right to refuse service is sufficient. Carving out explicit permission, no matter what you try to cloak it as, merely highlights your true intention.
2. "...along with the potential for discrimination against Christian individuals and businesses that comes with these shifts..."
78.4% of Americans claim to be Christian, according to PewResearch. Clearly they're in need of protection from all those wicked heathens! After all, it's practically impossible to go to church, buy religious books, pray, etc. these days, isn't it? I mean, only 491 out of 535 members of Congress are Christian! They have almost no voice in this country at all!
Equal rights for others is NOT discrimination against the religious. It's merely the realization that the special privilege Christians have held isn't fair.
2. "...along with the potential for discrimination against Christian individuals and businesses that comes with these shifts..."
78.4% of Americans claim to be Christian, according to PewResearch. Clearly they're in need of protection from all those wicked heathens! After all, it's practically impossible to go to church, buy religious books, pray, etc. these days, isn't it? I mean, only 491 out of 535 members of Congress are Christian! They have almost no voice in this country at all!
Equal rights for others is NOT discrimination against the religious. It's merely the realization that the special privilege Christians have held isn't fair.
4
A marriage is a civil contract that confers considerable economic rights as well as important legal responsibilities (like end of life care), and all Americans are entitled to the same rights as American citizens. Perhaps Governor Jindal would feel more comfortable if he immigrated to a country where his values are embraced...like Iran.
3
Or India they love Christians there.
"But a great many Americans who are not members of the clergy feel just as called to live their faith through their businesses."
What a contrived argument.
What a contrived argument.
7
This is why the Republicans will LOSE another presidential election. Instead of focusing on important issues these idiots still focus on gay rights, abortion rights and religion. For a party that claims they want less government interference they sure like to tell people how to live. A bunch of hypocritical clowns - the lot of them.
5
"Since I became governor in 2008, Louisiana has become one of the best places to do business in America."
Really?
By whose measure, and in what alternate universe?
Really?
By whose measure, and in what alternate universe?
3
Religion is in the heart, not in the orgaization. Religious freedom belongs to individuals, not groups. If you believe that God is love, not business, that's enough to justify religious freedom to marry before God.
An organization of religious beliefs does not go to heaven or wherever: it's pretty much implied that each individual in a church is on his own before God. There are no group representitives as to whether your life was worthy -- God decides. That's religious freedom.
An organization of religious beliefs does not go to heaven or wherever: it's pretty much implied that each individual in a church is on his own before God. There are no group representitives as to whether your life was worthy -- God decides. That's religious freedom.
2
Substitute "black" for "gay" in any of Jindal's arguments, and see how that goes down. Racial discrimination used to be propped up by folks saying it was supported by the bible, too. So wrong.
4
Dear Bobby, Welcome to 2015.
Business leaders know that not only do gays make up a decent percentage of their customers, they make up a decent percentage of their employees.
If you value growth in Louisiana's economy (and what Republican doesn't) then you have to attract talent. And a backward looking business climate is hardly the way to do it.
My guess is that small GOP donors will love you, but the big money Wall Street types will ignore you in droves.
Business leaders know that not only do gays make up a decent percentage of their customers, they make up a decent percentage of their employees.
If you value growth in Louisiana's economy (and what Republican doesn't) then you have to attract talent. And a backward looking business climate is hardly the way to do it.
My guess is that small GOP donors will love you, but the big money Wall Street types will ignore you in droves.
2
Straight people who believe in equality make up an even bigger percentage of customers and employees.
Tell me how this is different than refusing to serve black customers at a lunch counter.
3
So many sincere Times readers have already destroyed the constitutional, logical, and moral hypocrisy of Gov. Jindal, that I feel compelled to call out his pandering disingenuousness on another count.
Within my american memory, Gov. Jindal, as a brown person, would have been denied the right to drink out of a "whites only" water fountain, attend integrated schools, or vote, inter alia. Such discrimination was often superficially based on "religious" or "biblical" grounds. He's just another Republican free rider, exploiting the rights fought for by liberals to pad his resume for national office by discriminating against others for the benefit of his right wing handlers.
Within my american memory, Gov. Jindal, as a brown person, would have been denied the right to drink out of a "whites only" water fountain, attend integrated schools, or vote, inter alia. Such discrimination was often superficially based on "religious" or "biblical" grounds. He's just another Republican free rider, exploiting the rights fought for by liberals to pad his resume for national office by discriminating against others for the benefit of his right wing handlers.
4
As disgusted as I get with the excesses of my friends on the left, someone like Bobby Jindal invariably opens his mouth and reminds me why I'm still a liberal and a Democrat.
2
If Hindus can work at McDonald's (apparently they do) - you would think that a Christian baker could tolerate having a gay couple eat his cake. After all, the cake isn't offended. And, how is Louisiana going to discern whether someone's customer is gay? Will the state decide or will there be a local plebiscite?
3
Gay rights and gay marriage has nothing to do with religious liberty. You worship your gods, I'll worship mine. That, Mr. Jindal, is what religious liberty means. If my worshipping and marrying under my god inhibits your practices, then you are not looking at god, yours or mine. Try paying more attention to yours and leave me to mine.
The end result of anything else is one group forcing its opinion and practice on another. We can see how well that is working elsewhere. My marrying and how I do it is forcing nothing on you. That you have to accept other peoples' personal practices is the American agreement. Get used to it.
The end result of anything else is one group forcing its opinion and practice on another. We can see how well that is working elsewhere. My marrying and how I do it is forcing nothing on you. That you have to accept other peoples' personal practices is the American agreement. Get used to it.
12
the Gov slyly mixes religious freedom in a religious ceremony with the secular freedom inherent in a couple being married under the secular laws of the state. in the latter case (in my view), the Gov is wrong to assert that "religious" freedom applies to a person who refuses to take pictures at the wedding and/or the reception.
but i hope he gets the state law he wants and i hope he gets the attention he wants during the law suits that follow. his hated libs will then gain ground on his beloved conservatives.
but i hope he gets the state law he wants and i hope he gets the attention he wants during the law suits that follow. his hated libs will then gain ground on his beloved conservatives.
2
Jindal presents a confused argument which is surprising because the man went to both Brown and Oxford. You would think after than much education, he could clearly articulate the conservative position. I simply fail to see the connection between Keynesian economics and religious liberty positions. This is more like a campaign red-meat thrown to the Republican party base.
He ought to spend more time on the problems of Louisiana like their last place educational system, poverty, and pending environmental disasters as seas rise than picking on a minority who has captured the conscious of corporate America.
Shame on NYTimes editorial for not screening this- why give him free political ad publicity?
He ought to spend more time on the problems of Louisiana like their last place educational system, poverty, and pending environmental disasters as seas rise than picking on a minority who has captured the conscious of corporate America.
Shame on NYTimes editorial for not screening this- why give him free political ad publicity?
9
Oh - I think the NYT did as all a favor. If there was any doubt, we now know what he stands for.
Howard,
It is difficult to articulate a conservative position in a country that at its beginning saw all its conservatives self deport to the mother country and its colonies.
The America I know is committed to separation of church and state and in places like Louisiana that hearken back to the days before the French or American Revolution the power of the First Estate may seem very American. It is only the 20th century where Spanish Fascism changed its name to American Conservatism where Jindal can at one and the same time be American and conservative. Please give Jindal the wiggle room he needs the problems of resolving science and religion. It is difficult enough without a world language that evolves and changes every day.
Mr Jindal would do much better if Louisiana still spoke French and the Church still spoke Latin.
It is difficult to articulate a conservative position in a country that at its beginning saw all its conservatives self deport to the mother country and its colonies.
The America I know is committed to separation of church and state and in places like Louisiana that hearken back to the days before the French or American Revolution the power of the First Estate may seem very American. It is only the 20th century where Spanish Fascism changed its name to American Conservatism where Jindal can at one and the same time be American and conservative. Please give Jindal the wiggle room he needs the problems of resolving science and religion. It is difficult enough without a world language that evolves and changes every day.
Mr Jindal would do much better if Louisiana still spoke French and the Church still spoke Latin.
I hope that Governor Jindal and other proponents of religious freedom will read this: Freedom cuts both ways, does your law give the same rights to same sex couples as it does to conservative christians?
The end of segregation settled the question of whether we should tolerate those who offer services to the community, whether government or private entities, denying services to individuals based on our dislike of their status.
If I can insert the phrase 'African American' into your law in place of the phrase "Same sex" and everyone is cool with that you -might- have a leg to stand on.
I seriously doubt your plans would pass that sniff test. Shouldn't that tell you something?
The end of segregation settled the question of whether we should tolerate those who offer services to the community, whether government or private entities, denying services to individuals based on our dislike of their status.
If I can insert the phrase 'African American' into your law in place of the phrase "Same sex" and everyone is cool with that you -might- have a leg to stand on.
I seriously doubt your plans would pass that sniff test. Shouldn't that tell you something?
4
As long as you don't have to accommodate a product or a service, in a way that would go against your religion, that's not coercion. You are advocating for freedom to discriminate, not for freedom to not accommodate. A kosher store doesn't have to sell pork but it must sell its products to everyone. I am not a leftist, btw. This is just logic.
3
A man of color using the same tired arguments that were used against the civil rights supporters of the 60's. I find this somewhat amusing
2
"A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us." Well, we already do--most notably in putting up with your fast and loose way with facts and your loyalty to a deity for whose existence there is no evidence. I mean, wake up and smell the tolerance, Governor.
2
All religions should remain in the private sector where it belongs. The Christian Right feels they should be able to dictate laws that govern all the people according to their beliefs that don't necessarily reflect an unbiased approach. Religion should never be the base of any law because if the Christians want it their way then it opens the door to another religion wanting it their own way too. Then we'd be no different than the mid east countries who's governments are based on their own book, not the your book. No one religion should dictate over a people when we live in a democratic society.
3
!) Did the gov. actually write this himself? I doubt it. I'm sure he believes it, but it is actually, gibberish.
2) I don't know what the bill says, but the end result will be discrimination against gays and lesbian and basically less religious freedom, not more.
3) What does 'social conservatism' mean anyway? The way the gov. expresses it would not please Christ, so it isn't Christian. Not at all. Freedom of religion isn't the only freedom in our constitution, so it's not really freedom of religion. And it won't help the businesses of the state if we all, (the radical liberals, and whatever that means) don't buy anything from his state, nor visit as tourists, so how does that help anyone?
Maybe we should first vote with our feet, then vote with our ballots.
2) I don't know what the bill says, but the end result will be discrimination against gays and lesbian and basically less religious freedom, not more.
3) What does 'social conservatism' mean anyway? The way the gov. expresses it would not please Christ, so it isn't Christian. Not at all. Freedom of religion isn't the only freedom in our constitution, so it's not really freedom of religion. And it won't help the businesses of the state if we all, (the radical liberals, and whatever that means) don't buy anything from his state, nor visit as tourists, so how does that help anyone?
Maybe we should first vote with our feet, then vote with our ballots.
3
These people who speak of religious freedom as if it's in their right to impose their religion on others have it all backwards. Religious freedom is about the freedom to practice *your* religion and be free of the constraints that other religions would place on you. Religious freedom is as much about the right of atheists to not follow the bible as it is about the right of Christians to follow it. Forcing Christian beliefs and values on people is very much the opposite, and hijacking the term to tear down religious freedom is despicable at best.
6
Mr. Jindal does not specify how he is planning to determine that someone is operating out of "deeply held religious convictions," but I assume there will be stringent standards. Because it would be very sad indeed if this turned out to be just a way of legislating and legitimizing the free exercise of hatred.
4
Gov. Jindal uses fear, smear, and dishonesty. Instead of discussing and issues, he tries to intimidate. He repeatedly claims that a corporation can have a religion. No, it can’t. A corporation is simply an organization created to comply with corporate law. People have religions.
For decades he and other conservative have found a host of ways to attack gays. Everyone, including gays, has their religious views. It’s not religious freedom to attack gays. Attacking gays is an attack on their lives including their expression of religion. It is conservatives who have done the bullying.
Jindal falsely labels liberals as radical. Democrats and liberals today are moderate. They have moved toward the political center. Their policies balance competent self-government, sustainability, stewardship, and growth that is pro-business, pro-labor, pro-community, and pro-environmental health.
Conservatives and Republicans, the mislabeled GOP, have moved further and further to the far right wing. Nixon and Reagan couldn’t get elected today. Some of Obama’s policies are similar to Nixon’s. Clinton told his staff, “We are Eisenhower Republicans now.” Many to today’s GOP and Tea Party are where the John Birch Society was in the 1950s, when it was viewed as a radical, clownish fringe who promoted a dangerous nihilism.
The Democratic Party is the party of growth. Conservatives are turning the clock back to the 1800s with a series of panics and crashes, sweatshop labor, and Gilded Age inequality.
For decades he and other conservative have found a host of ways to attack gays. Everyone, including gays, has their religious views. It’s not religious freedom to attack gays. Attacking gays is an attack on their lives including their expression of religion. It is conservatives who have done the bullying.
Jindal falsely labels liberals as radical. Democrats and liberals today are moderate. They have moved toward the political center. Their policies balance competent self-government, sustainability, stewardship, and growth that is pro-business, pro-labor, pro-community, and pro-environmental health.
Conservatives and Republicans, the mislabeled GOP, have moved further and further to the far right wing. Nixon and Reagan couldn’t get elected today. Some of Obama’s policies are similar to Nixon’s. Clinton told his staff, “We are Eisenhower Republicans now.” Many to today’s GOP and Tea Party are where the John Birch Society was in the 1950s, when it was viewed as a radical, clownish fringe who promoted a dangerous nihilism.
The Democratic Party is the party of growth. Conservatives are turning the clock back to the 1800s with a series of panics and crashes, sweatshop labor, and Gilded Age inequality.
4
"As the fight for religious liberty moves to Louisiana, I have a clear message for any corporation that contemplates bullying our state: Save your breath."
I am printing this out and keeping it for a few months from now, when he is screaming uncle because of the massive boycotts this is bound to engender.
"In 2010, Louisiana adopted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits government from unduly burdening a person’s exercise of religion."
You can exercise Wicanism if you so chose, but if you serve the public, you serve the public equally. You don't cherry pick who you like or it is clearly discrimination. People do things I don't believe in all the time but if they come into my store, I serve them.
"Why are you are picking on me," says the bully when called upon his behavior.
I am printing this out and keeping it for a few months from now, when he is screaming uncle because of the massive boycotts this is bound to engender.
"In 2010, Louisiana adopted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits government from unduly burdening a person’s exercise of religion."
You can exercise Wicanism if you so chose, but if you serve the public, you serve the public equally. You don't cherry pick who you like or it is clearly discrimination. People do things I don't believe in all the time but if they come into my store, I serve them.
"Why are you are picking on me," says the bully when called upon his behavior.
3
While I understand what you are saying this foreigner understands Mr Jindal's agenda. I was born in what you might call a religious freedom environment. We had denominational schools, hospitals and welfare systems and the first estate practiced what you may refer to religious freedom. We now have a secular society and both religious and civil marriage but if you elect for religious marriage you must obtain a civil marriage for state recognition the religious sphere exercises full control of its religious spheres but receives no state recognition or sanction. What Jindal seeks is not religious freedom but something I call Fascist Creep.
Our Provincial language is French which has a long history of usage as a legal language. English as a legal language is in its infancy and English is still evolving so I understand how the nuance between a legal marriage and a religious marriage can be confusing but the State is not compelled to even acknowledge a religious marriage nor is the church compelled to recognize a civil marriage. That is how I recognize the separation of church and state.
Our Provincial language is French which has a long history of usage as a legal language. English as a legal language is in its infancy and English is still evolving so I understand how the nuance between a legal marriage and a religious marriage can be confusing but the State is not compelled to even acknowledge a religious marriage nor is the church compelled to recognize a civil marriage. That is how I recognize the separation of church and state.
I just want freedom FROM religion. Your 'sincerely held religious belief' is just that: belief, not scientifically proven fact. The public economic world of business exists on the facts of supply, demand, liquidity, capital, and taxation policy. There is no good rationalization for freedom from taxation for religious businesses.
7
Bobby Jindal was once a rising star in the GOP but is now tracking at 2% in presidential polls, the job he aspires to. He is desperate for attention and will say anything to get it. He gives outrageous opinions when no one asks. It is self defeating behavior as it is so unpresidential.
He should focus on running his own state, which is a mess.
He should focus on running his own state, which is a mess.
5
As Bobby runs for president he is running the state into the ground. Things in higher education and health care in this state are spiraling downward. It seems that now he is trying his best to stand out as the most conservative conservative. Being "the smart one" didn't work out so well. This is all about his last effort to be a relevant candidate, not what is best for his state. It's pathetic.
4
What blithering idiots the US is governmed by. Free exercise of religion is about worship, not demeaning other people in the name of Jesus or God. Jindal is the type of person who will blow up the whole nation out of narcissism.
6
The tone, phrasing and choice of words used by Jindal make this diatribe anything but a reasoned argument. What it is, is a blatant piece of partisan political rhetoric. I can understand the NYT posting this, but the editorial board should pair with a rational, thoughtful response.
4
Is there a similar law on the books in Louisiana that "merely makes our constitutional freedom so well defined that no judge miss it" with respect to interracial or inter-religious marriages? The absence shows that this is just todays version of bias cloaked in a religous-painted white sheet.
2
He speaks so strongly about freedom, but nowhere does he aknowledge the freedom to be gay. Ridiculous.
3
What Jindal pretends not to know about the proposed legislation for which he will fight is that it authorizes civil immunity on religious grounds. In other words, one individual can violate civil codes in action against another individual and claim immunity from State prosecution on the grounds that God told him to. This so completely derails the underpinnings of our union under law that it is laughable. It is tragic, however, that Jindal can assert his blind-spot ignoral with equanimity and claim he is thereby protecting religious freedom.
1
Bobby Jindal may be framing this argument in terms of "liberty" and "principle", but suffice it to say that those he defends in this piece will allow their love of money to override what few principles they have in very short order. Talk is cheap, Bobby.
1
Well done Bobby. Next time your state has an emergency and needs folks to respond, watch the numbers of those willing to help fall dramatically. Who would volunteer in a state where if they ended up injured their spouse would be denied access to them in the ER, or housing would legally be denied based on religious beliefs? Oh wait- you thought medical, law enforcement, military, social services, construction, and even morticians were all straight or willing to go where their civil rights would be trampled to help? Think again. Not only will you lose Mardi Gras visitors and cruise ship tourism, you are asking business, college students, and yes, first responders, to boycott your state. The fact is we don't need Louisiana. You need the nation to support your state. Good luck with that.
5
How exactly does baking a common wedding cake, arranging generic reception flowers, or snapping photos of gay (GLBT) couples inhibit in any way a fundamentalist going to church, praying, singing, helping the poor, or loving the neighbors? What precisely needs "strong protections"? "Religious liberty" laws covertly and dishonestly target a specific group of taxpaying citizens: The Gays.
This reminds me of Jim Crow and Nazi laws targeting Jews or Blacks.
Civil rights and public accommodation laws should trump the morality of shunning certain people. Why use religious dogma to harm the lives of others? Business should be egalitarian: serve all customers if they are polite, respectable members of the community engaged in lawful activities.
Why do fundamentalists cherry pick only homosexuals to exclude? Aren't we all sinners?
This reminds me of Jim Crow and Nazi laws targeting Jews or Blacks.
Civil rights and public accommodation laws should trump the morality of shunning certain people. Why use religious dogma to harm the lives of others? Business should be egalitarian: serve all customers if they are polite, respectable members of the community engaged in lawful activities.
Why do fundamentalists cherry pick only homosexuals to exclude? Aren't we all sinners?
1
No one who has traveled in the Southern states can possibly believe that religious liberty is threatened. The motives of a person who lives in the South with superior intelligence, such as Governor Jindal, who says the threat exists are either cynical or delusional. Governor Jindal is not delusional.
1
To quote Joseph Welch, "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Since the GOP lunge into Medievalism has successfully made not only human rights for gays, but previously-settled social issues such as birth control for married women controversial, I would like to propose the next GOP hot topic: menstruation.
For does not The Bible say a menstruating woman is unclean for 7 days and should basically keep to herself during this time? And why would I want such a person defiling my hot glue and yarn as she works the register at Hobby Lobby?
"Christians" who focus on some ancient prohibitions and not others are hypocrites, and we all know what Christ thought of hypocrites. Legislators such as Jindal defile both the central tenets of Christianity and our Constitution with this claptrap.
Since the GOP lunge into Medievalism has successfully made not only human rights for gays, but previously-settled social issues such as birth control for married women controversial, I would like to propose the next GOP hot topic: menstruation.
For does not The Bible say a menstruating woman is unclean for 7 days and should basically keep to herself during this time? And why would I want such a person defiling my hot glue and yarn as she works the register at Hobby Lobby?
"Christians" who focus on some ancient prohibitions and not others are hypocrites, and we all know what Christ thought of hypocrites. Legislators such as Jindal defile both the central tenets of Christianity and our Constitution with this claptrap.
2
Non Sequitir:
The "protections" you seek for "religious Liberty" are the same as the bullying tactics you say you abhor when directed against your viewpoint. Your logic does not follow when you seek to block the "freedom" to marry for all who love by letting religious groups prevent certain classes of people in love from marrying, because they happen to be the same gender. Then you allow these bigots to refuse service to anyone they perceive as Gay. Nice try - but that is bigotry.
Years ago, my Quaker mother tried to explain God by saying "we are all the same in the eyes of God." However you stand in for the deity when you seek to dictate who can enjoy the fruits of marriage based on your perception of what gender associations are OK and which are not.
It's hard to be a bigot, and make rational arguments, but here's an "attaboy," for trying. However you are as wrong as can be about this issue, which is why I will never visit your bigoted state until your hatred and fear of love evolves. Of course you probably don't believe in evolution either. Harrumph!
The "protections" you seek for "religious Liberty" are the same as the bullying tactics you say you abhor when directed against your viewpoint. Your logic does not follow when you seek to block the "freedom" to marry for all who love by letting religious groups prevent certain classes of people in love from marrying, because they happen to be the same gender. Then you allow these bigots to refuse service to anyone they perceive as Gay. Nice try - but that is bigotry.
Years ago, my Quaker mother tried to explain God by saying "we are all the same in the eyes of God." However you stand in for the deity when you seek to dictate who can enjoy the fruits of marriage based on your perception of what gender associations are OK and which are not.
It's hard to be a bigot, and make rational arguments, but here's an "attaboy," for trying. However you are as wrong as can be about this issue, which is why I will never visit your bigoted state until your hatred and fear of love evolves. Of course you probably don't believe in evolution either. Harrumph!
3
Mr. Jindal, you are so far on the wrong side of history, it takes one's breath away. It's not only radical liberals who recognize the rights of LGBT Americans as full citizens, it's pretty much the whole country. You might as well be telling us why allowing blacks and women to vote offends your delicate religious sensibilities. Wake up and join the 21st century.
2
Wait a minute. Corporations are bullying the states about supposed "religious freedom laws." But these efforts are actually being orchestrated by left-wing radicals and the liberal media who, among other sins, are opposed to profit-making? Maybe most Americans are opposed to these same laws not because they are influenced by the liberal media, but because the arguments in their support make no logical sense whatsoever, as Mr. Jindal's statement demonstrates so clearly.
3