Big ten

[AuroraHawk]

Try this then ... "market forces" are at play here. If the B1G or the NCAA don't think that it's good for business, then they have every right to make that determination. I thought conservatives loved the free market system. Don't like it? Move to Russia. You'll fit right in.

Originally posted by PatterHawk:
Could you stupid liberals leave politics out of sports, please? Fight for your beliefs based on the merits. Quit trying to leverage every last popular thing to get what you want.

Thanks for the consideration....3 2 1...

 

[Buck.McCoy]

Originally posted by IronFist1776:

Originally posted by like-woahh:
It never ceases to amuse me how religious folk like to pick which sins are greater than others. We should all have to fill out a sin questionnaire before business transactions just to make sure we're pure enough to buy goods from someone.

Didn't honor your father or mother back in 1992? No soup for you!

Save it. If you don't have believe in God, what you're really saying is that you believe that Life created itself which is a mathematical and scientific impossibility. You have FAITH that Life created itself, making you VERY religious.

This is the dumbest fvcking thing that I ever seen anyone say about ANYTHING, ever.

Congratulations, retard.

 

[like-woahh]

Originally posted by StormHawk42:
This thread makes me miss HROT

Me too, *sigh*

 

[hooper56]

Originally posted by PatterHawk:

Originally posted by WORTHYWISH:
How could one believe that bigotry and exclusion is a good business plan?

Why should a business owner be forced to participate in what they believe is a sin? Why would a gay couple want to force a baker or florist to make them a cake or furnish flower arrangements for their wedding? There are plenty of businesses that will take their money without a fuss.

This isn't about discrimination. It's about forcing society to accept a lifestyle that a very large portion doesn't.

For me, I don't give a crap what you want to do in your bedroom. Just leave it there. And if I was one of those bakers or florists, I'd take the money and let them wonder why the cake tasted like poo.....LMAO!

The Bigots made these same arguments back when they were trying to get civil rights for blacks and others. I guess the Bigots never really go away.

 

[AuroraHawk]

Keep spouting that right-wing, woe is us, "War on Religion" paranoia. Thats what makes this country great. Our freedom to express our opinions allows guys like you to reveal how narrow-minded, ill-informed and biased you are. It also reveals just how someone who purports to be Christian truly doesn't understand Christian ideals.

Originally posted by IronFist1776:
Not remotely true. You can't watch any program today without some liberal shill pushing their evolutionary religion on you. Evolution is a state sponsored religion and no one asked the rest of us if we wanted to fund that fraud. No matter what anyone's opinion, Life will never ever be able to create itself. Ever.

As for this law, it's not the least bit bigoted....unless yr a brainwashed liberal. If some Klansmen walked into a T shirt store and told the gay owner that he wanted 1000 shirts that says "All gays should be shot", shouldn't the owner have the right to tell them to go pound sand??? Or should he be bullied, like those lesbians did to that bakery that forced them to close (way to go HomoNazis) because their values would have been compromised? Those two could have went to any other bakery but they didn't. Their goal was to screw over people that these lesbians were intolerant of. If those two idiots hadn't pulled that crap, then maybe this law wouldn't have been necessary. As for the hopelessly corrupt NCAA, they can go hang w/ their liberal agenda crap.

 

[DanL53]

I'll say one more time, I wish people would research something before they decide what they think.

But, obviously that takes too much work. So, next best thing, maybe the mods will remove this thread?

 

[OldTownPepe]

Originally posted by DanL53:

I'll say one more time, I wish people would research something before they decide what they think.

But, obviously that takes too much work. So, next best thing, maybe the mods will remove this thread?

I second the motion.

 

[youflog1hawk]

Originally posted by PatterHawk:
Originally posted by WORTHYWISH:
How could one believe that bigotry and exclusion is a good business plan?
Why should a business owner be forced to participate in what they believe is a sin? Why would a gay couple want to force a baker or florist to make them a cake or furnish flower arrangements for their wedding? There are plenty of businesses that will take their money without a fuss.

This isn't about discrimination. It's about forcing society to accept a lifestyle that a very large portion doesn't.

For me, I don't give a crap what you want to do in your bedroom. Just leave it there. And if I was one of those bakers or florists, I'd take the money and let them wonder why the cake tasted like poo.....LMAO!
The Bigots made these same arguments back when they were trying to get civil rights for blacks and others. I guess the Bigots never really go away.



You do realize this is a false equivalency. The baker offered all services except the one that went against his religious beliefs which he is afforded to by the Constitution. I know that piece of paper means nothing to the left, they are just to intelligent to allow it to get in the way. Of course there are a lot of religious bigots out there.

 

[IronFist1776]

Originally posted by Buck.McCoy:

Originally posted by IronFist1776:

Originally posted by like-woahh:
It never ceases to amuse me how religious folk like to pick which sins are greater than others. We should all have to fill out a sin questionnaire before business transactions just to make sure we're pure enough to buy goods from someone.

Didn't honor your father or mother back in 1992? No soup for you!

Save it. If you don't have believe in God, what you're really saying is that you believe that Life created itself which is a mathematical and scientific impossibility. You have FAITH that Life created itself, making you VERY religious.

This is the dumbest fvcking thing that I ever seen anyone say about ANYTHING, ever.

Congratulations, retard.

You think that because you're stupid and a rude dumbass. You don't even have an argument.

 

[IronFist1776]

Originally posted by AuroraHawk:
Keep spouting that right-wing, woe is us, "War on Religion" paranoia. Thats what makes this country great. Our freedom to express our opinions allows guys like you to reveal how narrow-minded, ill-informed and biased you are. It also reveals just how someone who purports to be Christian truly doesn't understand Christian ideals.

Originally posted by IronFist1776:
Not remotely true. You can't watch any program today without some liberal shill pushing their evolutionary religion on you. Evolution is a state sponsored religion and no one asked the rest of us if we wanted to fund that fraud. No matter what anyone's opinion, Life will never ever be able to create itself. Ever.

As for this law, it's not the least bit bigoted....unless yr a brainwashed liberal. If some Klansmen walked into a T shirt store and told the gay owner that he wanted 1000 shirts that says "All gays should be shot", shouldn't the owner have the right to tell them to go pound sand??? Or should he be bullied, like those lesbians did to that bakery that forced them to close (way to go HomoNazis) because their values would have been compromised? Those two could have went to any other bakery but they didn't. Their goal was to screw over people that these lesbians were intolerant of. If those two idiots hadn't pulled that crap, then maybe this law wouldn't have been necessary. As for the hopelessly corrupt NCAA, they can go hang w/ their liberal agenda crap.

Except that no one's "spouting" anything, they're just giving their two cents....just like you. And wat paranoia are you referring to? Or hadn't you heard about the two lesbians who screwed over some bakery owners by forcing their fascism on them? You are projecting here: "Our freedom to express our opinions allows guys like you to reveal how
narrow-minded, ill-informed and biased you are. It also reveals just
how someone who purports to be Christian truly doesn't understand
Christian ideals. ". YOU are narrow minded, are ill-informed and biased yourself. And this is about protecting everyone's ideals and NOT forcing people to compromise them.

 

[trippnschmidt]

Originally posted by IronFist1776:

Originally posted by Buck.McCoy:

Originally posted by IronFist1776:

Originally posted by like-woahh:
It never ceases to amuse me how religious folk like to pick which sins are greater than others. We should all have to fill out a sin questionnaire before business transactions just to make sure we're pure enough to buy goods from someone.

Didn't honor your father or mother back in 1992? No soup for you!

Save it. If you don't have believe in God, what you're really saying is that you believe that Life created itself which is a mathematical and scientific impossibility. You have FAITH that Life created itself, making you VERY religious.

This is the dumbest fvcking thing that I ever seen anyone say about ANYTHING, ever.

Congratulations, retard.

You think that because you're stupid and a rude dumbass. You don't even have an argument.

Interesting, well educated response. But yes, keep thinking that your side is the only one that could possibly be correct. And that kind of thinking is what is really ruining this country, not the "liberal agenda"

 

[IronFist1776]

Originally posted by trippnschmidt:

Originally posted by IronFist1776:

Originally posted by Buck.McCoy:

Originally posted by IronFist1776:

Originally posted by like-woahh:
It never ceases to amuse me how religious folk like to pick which sins are greater than others. We should all have to fill out a sin questionnaire before business transactions just to make sure we're pure enough to buy goods from someone.

Didn't honor your father or mother back in 1992? No soup for you!

Save it. If you don't have believe in God, what you're really saying is that you believe that Life created itself which is a mathematical and scientific impossibility. You have FAITH that Life created itself, making you VERY religious.

This is the dumbest fvcking thing that I ever seen anyone say about ANYTHING, ever.

Congratulations, retard.

You think that because you're stupid and a rude dumbass. You don't even have an argument.

Interesting, well educated response. But yes, keep thinking that your side is the only one that could possibly be correct. And that kind of thinking is what is really ruining this country, not the "liberal agenda"

You are being hypocritical here. So because I feel correct in my convictions, I'm wrong but the liberal agenda is OK even though they too feel correct in their opinions? Absolutely ridiculous logic.

 

[AuroraHawk]

Originally posted by IronFist1776:

Originally posted by AuroraHawk:
Keep spouting that right-wing, woe is us, "War on Religion" paranoia. Thats what makes this country great. Our freedom to express our opinions allows guys like you to reveal how narrow-minded, ill-informed and biased you are. It also reveals just how someone who purports to be Christian truly doesn't understand Christian ideals.

Originally posted by IronFist1776:
Not remotely true. You can't watch any program today without some liberal shill pushing their evolutionary religion on you. Evolution is a state sponsored religion and no one asked the rest of us if we wanted to fund that fraud. No matter what anyone's opinion, Life will never ever be able to create itself. Ever.

As for this law, it's not the least bit bigoted....unless yr a brainwashed liberal. If some Klansmen walked into a T shirt store and told the gay owner that he wanted 1000 shirts that says "All gays should be shot", shouldn't the owner have the right to tell them to go pound sand??? Or should he be bullied, like those lesbians did to that bakery that forced them to close (way to go HomoNazis) because their values would have been compromised? Those two could have went to any other bakery but they didn't. Their goal was to screw over people that these lesbians were intolerant of. If those two idiots hadn't pulled that crap, then maybe this law wouldn't have been necessary. As for the hopelessly corrupt NCAA, they can go hang w/ their liberal agenda crap.

Except that no one's "spouting" anything, they're just giving their two cents....just like you. And wat paranoia are you referring to? Or hadn't you heard about the two lesbians who screwed over some bakery owners by forcing their fascism on them? You are projecting here: "Our freedom to express our opinions allows guys like you to reveal how
narrow-minded, ill-informed and biased you are. It also reveals just
how someone who purports to be Christian truly doesn't understand
Christian ideals. ". YOU are narrow minded, are ill-informed and biased yourself. And this is about protecting everyone's ideals and NOT forcing people to compromise them.

Sorry . . . not buying what you are trying to sell. When those who claim that their supposed religious beliefs don't allow them to "do business" with those whose activities conflict with their religion stop doing business with people who have, for example, had an abortion or who have engaged in pre-marital sexual relations, then maybe I'll start listening to their "woes" more closely. Did that couple in Oregon ask their heterosexual customers who were getting married if they have engaged in pre-marital sex? Until then, it is nothing more than people using religion as an excuse (not a reason) to be bigoted. It is convenient for them to say that gays and lesbians getting married is a sin in their eyes and they can't do business with "those" people because it is an affront to their religious beliefs. Yet, even though pre-marital sex is also a sin, that apparently doesn't interfere with their ability to do business. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y. Nothing more; nothing less.

You know what would happen if I was an employee and I told my employer that, because of my religion, I didn't want to interact with gays, lesbians, women who have had an abortion (because, you know, that makes them a murderer), individuals who have sex but aren't married because, all of those people are sinners according to my religion? I'd be fired. Yet, according to these Chicken Little, Western Civilization is Crumbing, America has become Sodom and Gomorrah types, that should be perfectly acceptable because . . . well, you know . . . that's my religion.[/B]

"Protecting ideals?" Keep telling yourself that. If you keep repeating it to yourself, you'll make yourself believe it.

You want the benefits of doing business in this country? Then don't discriminate. You want to cast stones at others in your personal home or in your particular house of worship? Have at it. This country was founded on the notion that all persons are created equal. The notion that the Constitution was created to ensure that individuals could pick and choose with whom they engage in public commerce is about the most ludicrous thing that I have ever heard. However, given that the religious right is losing the gay marriage battle in nearly every court in this country - even in notoriously conservative states - on constitutional Equal Protection and Due Process grounds, I'm not surprised that the religious right has "changed gears" and is trying a completely new strategy on how to justify their complete intolerance of gays and lesbians.

By the way, how'd that whole "Gay marriage is going to undermine the sanctity of traditional marriage" argument work out for you? Despite the preachings and predictions, somehow, some way, my traditional marriage survived. Shocker!

 

[IronFist1776]

Wow all that typing and none if it was true. That has to be hard to do but you did it. Now for the truth. NO, no one asked those lesbians or anyone else for that matter about every aspect of their lives. What the business owners did and have every right to do, is choose not to do business w/ them because it would have required them to be around that lifestyle or the "wedding", which any reasonable person should understand. Now the lesbians KNOWING that, chose this bakery to hurt them and screw over their business w/ fascist govt overreach and intolerance. As usual the homoNazis are the least tolerant people on the planet. Why didn't they just go to a different bakery? Because they had an agenda. No one should be forced to do business w/ whoever they don't want to. With this law in place, homoNazis can no longer pull that bullcrap....at least not in Indiana. You know that you're wrong, yr just intolerant of anyone who doesn't subscribe to yr preferred brainwashing.

This post was edited on 4/1 10:06 AM by IronFist1776

 

[Jan Itor]

Originally posted by PatterHawk:

Originally posted by StormHawk42:

Originally posted by PatterHawk:

Originally posted by WORTHYWISH:
How could one believe that bigotry and exclusion is a good business plan?

Why should a business owner be forced to participate in what they believe is a sin? Why would a gay couple want to force a baker or florist to make them a cake or furnish flower arrangements for their wedding? There are plenty of businesses that will take their money without a fuss.

This isn't about discrimination. It's about forcing society to accept a lifestyle that a very large portion doesn't.

For me, I don't give a crap what you want to do in your bedroom. Just leave it there. And if I was one of those bakers or florists, I'd take the money and let them wonder why the cake tasted like poo.....LMAO!

First, business owners who refuse service based on something like that are really dumb business people. Second, Indiana is going to lose a ton of money thanks to this law as several major corporations are planning to move their business elsewhere. You might not think it's about discrimination, but a few really big businesses certainly do.

I disagree. The businesses that have said they would "consider" leaving, are making statements based on national PR. The law in question has been on the books in Indiana for 20 years.

As for business people doing business based on their religious principles, well it's been going on for a very long time and been very prosperous for a large part of this country. Can you say Chik-fila? Winner winner chicken dinner. They know how to beat the rabble rousers in this game.

Any business that refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple has a poor interpretation of the Bible. Christ walk with the sinners not the righteous. He said hate the sin, not the sinner. In fact, he said show love and compassion for them. Baking a cake for a gay couple is not a sin. I think these people need to reread the bible and talk with someone not crazy when they have questions.

 

[markfromj]

Originally posted by IronFist1776:

No one should be forced to do business w/ whoever they don't want to.

Take this statement outside of this specific case: You really believe this as an overall view for our world?

 

[DanL53]

Originally posted by Jan Itor:

Originally posted by PatterHawk:

I disagree. The businesses that have said they would "consider" leaving, are making statements based on national PR. The law in question has been on the books in Indiana for 20 years.

As for business people doing business based on their religious principles, well it's been going on for a very long time and been very prosperous for a large part of this country. Can you say Chik-fila? Winner winner chicken dinner. They know how to beat the rabble rousers in this game.

Any business that refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple has a poor interpretation of the Bible. Christ walk with the sinners not the righteous. He said hate the sin, not the sinner. In fact, he said show love and compassion for them. Baking a cake for a gay couple is not a sin. I think these people need to reread the bible and talk with someone not crazy when they have questions.




Statement in bold is false. The new law protects the business from lawsuits. The Federal law did not. The new law treats For-Profit businesses as an individual with Religious Freedoms. Businesses are not people.

People can refuse service. They can be sued for it as discriminatory. Depending on the merits of the case one side or the other may win, or a judge may toss the whole thing out.

The new law increases the power of government by preventing access to the courts.

We don't need bigger government. If someone wishes to behave with bigotry...be prepared to be sued. If you can show your religious freedom was somehow needlessly being harmed...you might win.

Yes, court stinks...but that is another matter that needs to be fixed.

What is really comical is currently protected minority groups are exempt from the law. All that has to happen is for gays to be added to protected status and they will be able to sue at their hearts desire as well. Then the law only allows for the average unprotected schmuck to be told by the guy at the Quiki-Mart that he can't shop there based on the businesses religious rights...and the poor normal schmuck is out of luck!

REALLY smart plan to begin with! (Sarcasm notice for the impaired)

Edited to add. Again, Businesses are NOT people. We need that message to be sent loud and clear to the Supreme Court. The more we let large corporations enjoy the rights of a human, the less rights humans will really have. I don't get the fascination with conservatives who used to be about individual rights, being willing to give them up in favor of big business and big government.

This isn't the way to fight your need to not have to serve cake at a gay wedding. Go to court and PROVE, set a precedent, that it affects your religious freedom. Quite hiding behind the government.

Tale to the freagin' Amish. They win lawsuits all the time. They don't go begging for help.

This post was edited on 3/30 12:27 PM by DanL53

 

[Hawkfreak2k15]

Michigan St was clearly underrated and Wisconsin was as good as advertised. The B1G was one of the top two conferences all year. Some say Big 12 was better, but everyone agreed that it was very close. Do these two teams making the Final Four put the B1G ahead of 12? Maybe. But I'm sick of always talking about the other big 10 teams. It always is someone other than the Hawks. Why can't for once it be us that is the underrated team that makes a run. I cheer for the B1G but I'm sick of everyone else always having a shot to go far and not us. Even this year, we think it was successful because we made the tourny and beat Davidson. I'm sick of that being our ceiling. Final Four or bust from here on out.

 

[youflog1hawk]

Re: Big ten
IronFist1776 posted on 3/30/2015...
Wow sll that typing and none if it was true. That has to be hard to do but you did it. Now for the truth. NO, no one asked those ledbians or anyone else for that matter about every aspect of their lives. What the business owners and gave every right to do, is choose not to do business w/ them because it would have required them to be around that lifestyle or the "wedding", which any reasonable person should understand. Now the lesbians KNOWING that, chose this bakery to hurt them and screw their business w/ fascist govt overreach and intolerance. As usual the homoNazis are the least tolerant people on the planet. Why didn't they just go to a different bakery? Because they had an agenda. No one should be forced to do business w/ whoever they don't want to. With this law in place, homoNazis can no longer pull that bullcrap....ar least not in Indiana. You know that you're wrong, yr just intolerant of anyone who doesn't subscribe to yr preferred brainwashing.


This and I assume OP needed to get their agenda out on a sports board.

 

[newjeru]

Or better yet let's not serve colored people in our restaurant because of our religious beliefs. Guess you did not major in American History did you?

 

[AuroraHawk]

Nope . . . all it would have required the couple running the bakery business to do was . . . bake a cake.

Oregon has a state law in place that does not allow for businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. That couple purposefully chose to violate the Oregon statute. Now . . . should this couple have to follow that law enacted by the governing authority of the state? They can turn to their Bible for the answer. Specifically, Romans 13:1. I'll help "Let everyone be subject to governing authorities, for there is no authority except that God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." According to the Bible, those who were elected and the laws that have been enacted are all part of His plan. Thus, per Romans 13:1, this couple should have followed what God has pre-ordained in His plan. Or . . . can they pick and choose verses as they deem fit?

As for preventing litigation, if you really think that enacting a law that provides protection to businesses when they refuse to do business when it "substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion" is going to eliminate litigation, you are incredibly naive. Such a law practically screams to be tested through tons of litigation. What is "substantial burden" to the exercise of religion? Is baking a cake a "substantial burden?" Is baking a cake involve the practice of religion? Is the "substantial burden" test subjective or objective? Is it measured by a "substantial burden" to an ordinary reasonable person or is it measured by the actual party? How does baking a cake differ from other ordinary interactions with people and how does that "substantially burden" someone's right to practice a particular religion? If engaging in conversation with a gay man or lesbian woman doesn't "substantially burden" the exercise of religion, how does baking a cake at your place of business for compensation burden a person's ability to exercise the religion of choice?

I've got an very easy answer to this. And . . . ironically . . . its contained in Matthew 7:12: "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you: for this is the law and the prophets." Otherwise knows as the Golden Rule.

Instead of passing judgment on how others live their lives, perhaps they could have simply practiced the Golden Rule and . . . baked a cake.

Or, perhaps His plan was for this to play out exactly as it has.

Originally posted by IronFist1776:
Wow sll that typing and none if it was true. That has to be hard to do but you did it. Now for the truth. NO, no one asked those ledbians or anyone else for that matter about every aspect of their lives. What the business owners and gave every right to do, is choose not to do business w/ them because it would have required them to be around that lifestyle or the "wedding", which any reasonable person should understand. Now the lesbians KNOWING that, chose this bakery to hurt them and screw their business w/ fascist govt overreach and intolerance. As usual the homoNazis are the least tolerant people on the planet. Why didn't they just go to a different bakery? Because they had an agenda. No one should be forced to do business w/ whoever they don't want to. With this law in place, homoNazis can no longer pull that bullcrap....ar least not in Indiana. You know that you're wrong, yr just intolerant of anyone who doesn't subscribe to yr preferred brainwashing.

 

[youflog1hawk]

Re: Big ten
newjeru posted on 3/30/2015...
Or better yet let's not serve colored people in our restaurant because of our religious beliefs. Guess you did not major in American History did you?


Another false equivalency. The baker did not refuse all other services just the one that his constitutional rights afford him or her. Unless you are stating the religious have no rights in the Constitution. You will have to do better than that.

 

[ThumperHawk]

Originally posted by IronFist1776:

Originally posted by meatloaf55:
a lot of stupidity on both sides in this thread

No, just one.

As you continue to demonstrate with each successive post.

 

[IronFist1776]

That's yr dumbass Libtarded opinion, dumbass.

 

[StormHawk42]

Well the state of Connecticut is boycotting government travel and commerce with Indiana so there's that

 

[needhamsandwich]

Originally posted by IronFist1776:
That's yr dumbass Libtarded opinion, dumbass.

It's easy to tell who the mouth breathers are in this conversation.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Oh how I miss HROT! What a fun thread we got here...here I go!:

Patterhawk:
"Could you stupid liberals leave politics out of sports,
please? Fight for your beliefs based on the merits. Quit trying to
leverage every last popular thing to get what you want.

Thanks for the consideration....3 2 1..."

Since when is a decision where, and who, to take your business to a bad thing? You seem to be arguing that a business owner should be allowed to turn away those they want to, based on "religious freedom"....yet that customers (see NCAA/BigTen) should not be able to make a similar, business-related, decision. Curious logic.

One thing in this thread that is more American than any other is the idea that the market (see: people) can influence change through economic means, you know, capitalism.

Patterhawk:
"Why should a business owner be forced to participate in what they
believe is a sin?

For
me, I don't give a crap what you want to do in your bedroom. Just
leave it there. And if I was one of those bakers or florists, I'd take
the money and let them wonder why the cake tasted like poo.....LMAO"

Let's be clear here, no law is forcing anyone to do anything that they "believe is a sin", at least in this discussion. Unless you'd like to point out the law that either a) forces homosexual sex upon a person or b) forces a person to approve of/engage in/physically enable said homosexual sex. I presume you can not cite to that law, so I'm not sure what your point is?

And then your well reasoned response, apparently as a professional food-service provider, would be do defecate in and contaminate your product. Not only does that seem illogical, but it would, in fact, be illegal...regardless of your proclaimed religion.

Patterhaw:
"Can you say Chik-fila? Winner winner chicken dinner. They know how to beat the rabble rousers in this game."

I'm not sure you understand the Chik Fil A issue at all, do you believe they are turning away homosexuals? Do you believe they are refusing to serve homosexually-themed chicken-penises?

youflog1hawk:
"This is my last reply on this. This again is the liberal mafia at work.
Their are at least 31 other states with some type religious freedom laws
and I'm sure no one even new. Why? Because it is not anti Gay. Get over
it faciasts"

This seems to be posted, in various forms, throughout this thread. I'm curious if those posting it actually know the statutes that they are discussing.

Indiana just passed their RFRA law, which brings it to the national stage that we are seeing now. (Not the Federal, largely inapplicable since 1997, statute that some are trying to cite as "20 years ago").

"A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of
religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application
of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling
governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of
furthering that compelling governmental interest."

"A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by
a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative
proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant
governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in
order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter. "

Therefore this clause can be raised as a defense to a lawsuit. Certainly doesn't make anything automatic, but does give them a statutory affirmative defense that they did not have previously.

But, really, the law itself doesn't much matter, as it hasn't been practically applied/challenged enough to actually matter. The question, the debate that is taking place is what is important. It has one underlying point that probably needs to be decided: Should homosexuality be a protected class, one that is protected under public accommodation laws?

youflog1hawk:
"The baker offered all services except the one that went
against his religious beliefs which he is afforded to by the
Constitution. I know that piece of paper means nothing to the left, they
are just to intelligent to allow it to get in the way. "

I always love the Constitutional arguments. I'd like to see flog flesh this out:

What portion of, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." supports your statement that the baker is "afforded" the right to deny services?

IronFist1776:
"No one should be forced to do business w/ whoever they don't want to. "

In theory I agree with this. This would be pure capitalism. This would be human/animal instinct at its most basic. You choose who/what/where/when to do "business".

But, in reality, it doesn't work. For all the bithing and moaning that constantly surrounds our media and politics and whatnot, this is a pretty damned good and comfortable country. We enjoy things that few others, relatively speaking, do on a day-to-day basis. We get to go in to a restaurant and get served...nearly regardless of what/what we are. This is largely for two reasons: 1) business, sell what you have to everyone who will buy it, and b) laws. But even in those laws, it really is about business. If you open yourself up to the "marketplace", as I'll call it, you must (by and large) do business with those who show up.

If you own a 20-apartment building that you rent out to those who apply and meet your business-related qualifications, you should have no right to turn someone away for being jewish, black, single, gay, etc. There just isn't a necessity for society to allow you to turn them away.

The same applies here. You have no right to turn someone away for being gay, jewish, black, single, etc. There is no law requiring you to lube their assholes up first...unless you are an asshole-luber by trade.

But even if you buy in to IronFist's belief and wish it to be implemented, you should have no problem with what the NCAA/Big Ten is discussing doing. It would be people (NCAA/B10) deciding not to do business with people they don't want to. What, then, is your issue?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by youflog1hawk:
Re: Big ten
newjeru posted on 3/30/2015...
Or better yet let's not serve colored people in our restaurant because of our religious beliefs. Guess you did not major in American History did you?


Another false equivalency. The baker did not refuse all other services just the one that his constitutional rights afford him or her. Unless you are stating the religious have no rights in the Constitution. You will have to do better than that.

Flog: Which "baker" case are you referring to, specifically? I'd like to discuss the merits, if you have time.

I'll even post this FoxNews article discussing a few cases, is it one of these?

I don't understand your false-equivalency claim, but that is largely because it is nonsensical. These two things seem quite comparable:

Religious belief that "blacks" are dirty, unwashed heathen sinners that should be eradicated from the earth: Not served in diner.
Religious belief that homosexuals (or their weddings?) are inherently sinful in their activities: Not a cake baked for.

But I'll let you tell me which specific case so that we can really get in to the details of what "constitutional rights" are specifically afforded him/her.

 

[IronFist1776]

Originally posted by needhamsandwich:

Originally posted by IronFist1776:
That's yr dumbass Libtarded opinion, dumbass.

It's easy to tell who the mouth breathers are in this conversation.

Translation: "I'm one of the butthurt Libtards yr referring to". Are you claiming that you don't breathe out of yr mouth??? So yr dead??? Do you breathe out of yr anus? Or a blowhole in the top of yr head? Maybe out of an armpit?

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

I think this is a well written article on the subject:




After Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a writing that "the only place that has more idiots than Instagram is in politics."

I support gay marriage. I support anti-discrimination laws protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) citizens. But I also support religious liberty. These commitments sometimes conflict. But it is a sad day when there is so little support for the liberties of U.S. citizens, especially among liberals who should be their staunchest defenders.

Religious liberty took a big hit in a 1990 Supreme Court argued for the majority, as long as it is "neutral (and) generally applicable."



Outraged over this reasoning, which would have outlawed using wine at the Catholic Mass during Prohibition, Congress responded (necessary to achieve a "compelling government interest" and that the law doing so employed the "least restrictive means."

After the Supreme Court Indiana's RFRA is the 20th.

There is no excuse for refusing to serve a lesbian couple at a restaurant and to my knowledge no state RFRA has ever been used to justify such discrimination. But if we favor liberty for all Americans (and not just for those who agree with us), we should be wary of using the coercive powers of government to compel our fellow citizens to participate in rites that violate their religious beliefs. We would not force a Jewish baker to make sacramental bread for a Catholic Mass. Why would we force a fundamentalist baker to make a cake for a gay wedding?



For as long as I can remember, the culture wars have been poisoning our politics, turning Democrats and Republicans into mortal enemies and transforming arenas that used to be blithely bipartisan into battlegrounds between good and evil. Now our battles over "family values" are threatening to kill religious liberty. And liberals do not much seem to care.

In a French Revolution, in which religion and liberty cannot coexist. Today pro-choice and gay rights groups increasingly view conservative Christians as bigots hell bent on imposing their primitive beliefs on others.

Rather than viewing today's culture wars as battles between light and darkness, Laycock sees them as principled disagreements. What one side views as "grave evils," the other side views as "fundamental human rights." What is needed if we want to preserve liberty in both religion and sexuality is a grand bargain in which the left would agree not to impose its secular morality on religious individuals while the right would agree not to impose its religious rules on society at large.

Any takers? Is it really necessary to pin a scarlet letter on those who believe the Bible prohibits gay marriage? Or might we learn to be satisfied with preserving liberty for ourselves without imposing our ideals (on sex or religion) on others?



Admittedly, there are problems with feed the homeless in city parks.

Almost all of my liberal friends disagree with me on this. That is their right. But in my view the Old Order Amish have an equally fundamental right to drive their horse-drawn buggies on Indiana roads. So do Muslim students in Indianapolis public schools who want to be released from class in order to celebrate their Eid al-Adha festival.

Let's not let culture warriors, on either side, sacrifice our freedoms on the altar of the culture wars.

Link

 

[DanL53]

Originally posted by icantfindausernamethatisntused:

I think this is a well written article on the subject:





After Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a writing that "the only place that has more idiots than Instagram is in politics."

I support gay marriage. I support anti-discrimination laws protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) citizens. But I also support religious liberty. These commitments sometimes conflict. But it is a sad day when there is so little support for the liberties of U.S. citizens, especially among liberals who should be their staunchest defenders.

Religious liberty took a big hit in a 1990 Supreme Court argued for the majority, as long as it is "neutral (and) generally applicable."



Outraged over this reasoning, which would have outlawed using wine at the Catholic Mass during Prohibition, Congress responded (necessary to achieve a "compelling government interest" and that the law doing so employed the "least restrictive means."

After the Supreme Court Indiana's RFRA is the 20th.

There is no excuse for refusing to serve a lesbian couple at a restaurant and to my knowledge no state RFRA has ever been used to justify such discrimination. But if we favor liberty for all Americans (and not just for those who agree with us), we should be wary of using the coercive powers of government to compel our fellow citizens to participate in rites that violate their religious beliefs. We would not force a Jewish baker to make sacramental bread for a Catholic Mass. Why would we force a fundamentalist baker to make a cake for a gay wedding?



For as long as I can remember, the culture wars have been poisoning our politics, turning Democrats and Republicans into mortal enemies and transforming arenas that used to be blithely bipartisan into battlegrounds between good and evil. Now our battles over "family values" are threatening to kill religious liberty. And liberals do not much seem to care.

In a French Revolution, in which religion and liberty cannot coexist. Today pro-choice and gay rights groups increasingly view conservative Christians as bigots hell bent on imposing their primitive beliefs on others.

Rather than viewing today's culture wars as battles between light and darkness, Laycock sees them as principled disagreements. What one side views as "grave evils," the other side views as "fundamental human rights." What is needed if we want to preserve liberty in both religion and sexuality is a grand bargain in which the left would agree not to impose its secular morality on religious individuals while the right would agree not to impose its religious rules on society at large.

Any takers? Is it really necessary to pin a scarlet letter on those who believe the Bible prohibits gay marriage? Or might we learn to be satisfied with preserving liberty for ourselves without imposing our ideals (on sex or religion) on others?



Admittedly, there are problems with feed the homeless in city parks.

Almost all of my liberal friends disagree with me on this. That is their right. But in my view the Old Order Amish have an equally fundamental right to drive their horse-drawn buggies on Indiana roads. So do Muslim students in Indianapolis public schools who want to be released from class in order to celebrate their Eid al-Adha festival.

Let's not let culture warriors, on either side, sacrifice our freedoms on the altar of the culture wars.


I would have preferred more detail on the differences between the Federal RFRA and this Indiana legislation. Or better still the differences between the Indiana RFRA and the neighboring Illinois RFRA which no one was up in arms over.

Not even those darn liberals that the author worries about. Why are they up in arms over this one?

Because the way it is written in Indiana, and without the GLBT community being a protected group? You darn well could see discrimination.

And that's a problem. Especially if one reads some of the posts on here..it WILL be a problem.

 

[The Sleeping Dog]

Nothing says tolerance quite like banning commerce with someone because you disagree on a political question.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Decent article Ican't, but to point out a few things:

We already make determinations about things that "violate" "religious freedom."

Do we allow unfettered consumption of intoxicants? Of course not. The Peyote case, much like the other named ones, is about specific consumption in a specific case under specific religious observance.

But, we aren't supposed to "question" religious sincerity or whether it is commonly held. So, what will we accept and what won't we?

Apparently many are willing to accept that baking a cake/photographing a wedding for homosexuals is abhorrent to their religious beliefs and therefore an affirmative defense, under RFRA, to public accommodation laws (and others).

Are we willing to believe that lighting oneself on fire in observance of Buddhism should suffice? How about muslim prisoners who are fasting, to the point of starvation and death?

Why not the example that has been brought up many times? A religious belief that "blacks" (or anyone, jew, muslim, latino, whatever) are so dirty (or whatever) that they can't be within their clean stores/restaurants/bakeries/whatever? Are we going to uphold that?

Its clear we are going to draw lines somewhere, the question, as usual, is where.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by The Sleeping Dog:
Nothing says tolerance quite like banning commerce with someone because you disagree on a political question.

Wait, what? Isn't that the epitome of the American way? It is capitalism. Funny when people who preach capitalism decide they don't like it when used against them.

Call it a "political question" all you want, if this fits this category, then what doesn't?

Private corporations are choosing who they want to do business with..........and you are complaining about that.

I made the same point earlier, but it must have been to subtle, so compare these two statements:

"I should be able to do business with whomever I choose, especially when I disagree with something the other side is choosing to do." - sincerely Indiana business people, and their supporters

"I should be able to do business with whomever I choose, especially when I
disagree with something the other side is choosing to do." - sincerely the NCAA/BigTen/etc.

Oh wait, its the same statement.

 

[nu2u]

I am not particularly religious or political but I just wanted to point out that, according to another post on the wrestling board, the Bible apparently states that fornicators --yes FORNICATORS -- are banned from heaven.

We're all going to Hell !! (unless you are a virgin, of course)

I just wanted to pass this along because IMO it's not common knowledge....... or is it? IDK ......like I said, I'm not a religious person per se...... it was news to me.

 

[needhamsandwich]

Originally posted by IronFist1776:

Originally posted by needhamsandwich:

Originally posted by IronFist1776:
That's yr dumbass Libtarded opinion, dumbass.

It's easy to tell who the mouth breathers are in this conversation.

Translation: "I'm one of the butthurt Libtards yr referring to". Are you claiming that you don't breathe out of yr mouth??? So yr dead??? Do you breathe out of yr anus? Or a blowhole in the top of yr head? Maybe out of an armpit?

LOL, I expected no less.

Also, what is "yr"? Is that supposed to be English?

 

[youflog1hawk]

Originally posted by youflog1hawk:
Re: Big ten
newjeru posted on 3/30/2015...
Or better yet let's not serve colored people in our restaurant because of our religious beliefs. Guess you did not major in American History did you?


Another false equivalency. The baker did not refuse all other services just the one that his constitutional rights afford him or her. Unless you are stating the religious have no rights in the Constitution. You will have to do better than that.[/QUOTE]Flog: Which "baker" case are you referring to, specifically? I'd like to discuss the merits, if you have time.

I'll even post this FoxNews article discussing a few cases, is it one of these?

I don't understand your false-equivalency claim, but that is largely because it is nonsensical. These two things seem quite comparable:

Religious belief that "blacks" are dirty, unwashed heathen sinners that should be eradicated from the earth: Not served in diner.
Religious belief that homosexuals (or their weddings?) are inherently sinful in their activities: Not a cake baked for.

But I'll let you tell me which specific case so that we can really get in to the details of what "constitutional rights" are specifically afforded him/her....................................................................


Try Colorado Baker and religious freedom. Or Bed n breakfast in NY. I do not believe your intent is honorable. You cannot argue with those who refuse facts or make up their own facts. Nonsensical? I guess it was not the religious that were the driving force to free slaves.
[/QUOTE]

I don't understand your false-equivalency claim, but that is largely because it is nonsensical. These two things seem quite comparable:

Why is this so hard. Where do our rights come from? That's the first hurdle. A black american cannot change his color his rights are no different than one who cannot change from Caucasian. The baker would not bake and decorate a cake because of his religious RIGHTS are being infringed. He did not deny all his services just the one that would promote an action that his religion taught was wrong. He had no problems selling them other things like cup cakes or other items not related to the ceremony. Blacks at times were not allowed ANY service because they were black not because of an action but by being black(not because they were heathens).

Why are we making the gays a special class other than for political motives? Liberal mafia! No facts they are born that way. We just want it over the the rights of others. I say lets us use that argument for pedophiles, Kleptomaniacs, polygamy,etc. Lets go easy on them they are born that way. As a side note this line of thinking is a belief of many like Dawkins "that we are just dancing to our own DNA" just chemicals in motion. It is so incoherent. When you invent a right the consequences are you must take the rights away from others. These others have constitutional rights in writing. I would not want anyone religious to promote by force of government something that goes against their belief. Hobby Lobby anyone.

Answer this. Is it a right of gay bakers to deny a christian who comes in and ask to decorate a cake that says marriage is only for a man and women! I say the gay baker can deny service.

Its not hard to sit back and see the hysteria of the left for the political correct movement they want. Showing how intolerant, hateful, and liars they are and to see how easily the public is swayed by such lies.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by nu2u:

I am not particularly religious or political but I just wanted to point out that, according to another post on the wrestling board, the Bible apparently states that fornicators --yes FORNICATORS -- are banned from heaven.

We're all going to Hell !! (unless you are a virgin, of course)

I just wanted to pass this along because IMO it's not common knowledge....... or is it? IDK ......like I said, I'm not a religious person per se...... it was news to me.

Well nu, you need to remember this important fact:

There are ~5 Christian denomination families, with lots of sub-denominations (hundreds?), many of which that have contradicting beliefs and many use different "versions" of the Bible. They even interpret the same Bible differently.

So, for some, fornication is sinful and damning, for others it is just damn fun.

 

[IronFist1776]

Originally posted by needhamsandwich:

Originally posted by IronFist1776:

Originally posted by needhamsandwich:

Originally posted by IronFist1776:
That's yr dumbass Libtarded opinion, dumbass.

It's easy to tell who the mouth breathers are in this conversation.

Translation: "I'm one of the butthurt Libtards yr referring to". Are you claiming that you don't breathe out of yr mouth??? So yr dead??? Do you breathe out of yr anus? Or a blowhole in the top of yr head? Maybe out of an armpit?

LOL, I expected no less.

Also, what is "yr"? Is that supposed to be English?

"Tee hee". Don't worry, hypocritical dumbass, you've remained true to Libtarded form too. Not very tolerant.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by youflog1hawk:
Originally posted by youflog1hawk:
Re: Big ten
newjeru posted on 3/30/2015...
Or better yet let's not serve colored people in our restaurant because of our religious beliefs. Guess you did not major in American History did you?


Another false equivalency. The baker did not refuse all other services just the one that his constitutional rights afford him or her. Unless you are stating the religious have no rights in the Constitution. You will have to do better than that.

Flog: Which "baker" case are you referring to, specifically? I'd like to discuss the merits, if you have time.

I'll even post this FoxNews article discussing a few cases, is it one of these?

I don't understand your false-equivalency claim, but that is largely because it is nonsensical. These two things seem quite comparable:

Religious belief that "blacks" are dirty, unwashed heathen sinners that should be eradicated from the earth: Not served in diner.
Religious belief that homosexuals (or their weddings?) are inherently sinful in their activities: Not a cake baked for.

But I'll let you tell me which specific case so that we can really get in to the details of what "constitutional rights" are specifically afforded him/her....................................................................


Try Colorado Baker and religious freedom. Or Bed n breakfast in NY. I do not believe your intent is honorable. You cannot argue with those who refuse facts or make up their own facts. Nonsensical? I guess it was not the religious that were the driving force to free slaves.
[/QUOTE]

I don't understand your false-equivalency claim, but that is largely because it is nonsensical. These two things seem quite comparable:

Why is this so hard. Where do our rights come from? That's the first hurdle. A black american cannot change his color his rights are no different than one who cannot change from Caucasian. The baker would not bake and decorate a cake because of his religious RIGHTS are being infringed. He did not deny all his services just the one that would promote an action that his religion taught was wrong. He had no problems selling them other things like cup cakes or other items not related to the ceremony. Blacks at times were not allowed ANY service because they were black not because of an action but by being black(not because they were heathens).

Why are we making the gays a special class other than for political motives? Liberal mafia! No facts they are born that way. We just want it over the the rights of others. I say lets us use that argument for pedophiles, Kleptomaniacs, polygamy,etc. Lets go easy on them they are born that way. As a side note this line of thinking is a belief of many like Dawkins "that we are just dancing to our own DNA" just chemicals in motion. It is so incoherent. When you invent a right the consequences are you must take the rights away from others. These others have constitutional rights in writing. I would not want anyone religious to promote by force of government something that goes against their belief. Hobby Lobby anyone.

Answer this. Is it a right of gay bakers to deny a christian who comes in and ask to decorate a cake that says marriage is only for a man and women! I say the gay baker can deny service.

Its not hard to sit back and see the hysteria of the left for the political correct movement they want. Showing how intolerant, hateful, and liars they are and to see how easily the public is swayed by such lies.

[/QUOTE]
Some of your rantings are fun, some are just simplistically ignorant.

"Answer this. Is it a right of gay bakers to deny a christian who comes
in and ask to decorate a cake that says marriage is only for a man and
women! I say the gay baker can deny service."

Well, you use the word "right" and I don't think you know what it actually means. What "right" are you conferring upon gay bakers? The right to do business with whom they wish? Can you point me in the direction of that right? The Tenth maybe? Homosexuality, as far as I am aware, is not a "religion" and has no "beliefs". A homosexual baker who doesn't want to make a cake that is offensive to himself regarding gay marriage would be identical to a hipster not wanting to decorate a cake blessing bad coffee.

Second, the business owner (gay-baker) would be denying a, likely, "religious"-belief cake...thereby denying service because of the customer's religious beliefs. Most (all?) States have codified protections in public accommodations for religion and religious beliefs.

Can't believe it took two paragraphs to define such a simple concept. Sure, you are allowed to have a belief that anybody (say, a redhead) should be allowed to deny anyone (say, a blonde) for any reason (being blonde).....and there isn't anything stopping that currently, at least, usually, until a "protected" trait is involved, such as denying someone for being Christian. But, even then you are allowed to have your beliefs, feel free to believe that anyone/everyone should be allowed to deny service to Muslims, but the laws say otherwise, and there aren't many people trying to overturn those.

"Why is this so hard. Where do our rights come from? That's the first
hurdle."

Where do our rights come from? Well, considering we are talking about a statute passed by the Indiana state legislature, and we are talking about statutory rights (RFRA), rights come from laws. Obviously you want to try and "win" an argument by saying, "NO, our rights come from GOD!" which largely has no application. Do a simple thought experiment. If our rights "come from God", then they do in countries like, say, Iraq...how are those "god given rights" working out for them? Nobody is interceding on behalf of God, so, in discussions like this, about the, you know, law, rights come from the law. The Constitution restricts the government from passing certain laws...like those establishing religion, or curtailing freedom of speech, etc.

"A black american cannot change his color his rights are no
different than one who cannot change from Caucasian."

Ok..............

"The baker would not bake and decorate a cake because of his religious
RIGHTS are being infringed. He did not deny all his services just the
one that would promote an action that his religion taught was wrong. He
had no problems selling them other things like cup cakes or other items
not related to the ceremony. Blacks at times were not allowed ANY
service because they were black not because of an action but by being
black(not because they were heathens). "

Wait, what? So this Baker, which you think should be protected by RFRA, used his "religion" to deny a specific service....baking a wedding cake for homosexuals. And then you try to say that this can't happen to "blacks"....because they were denied "ANY" service in the past? This makes no sense. You need to understand first, that we can not question one's religious convictions, nor determine whether they are "commonly held", therefore if a person has a "religious objection" to "blacks", how could you possibly argue that they aren't allowed the RFRA protection?

You are, basically, saying that the Baker would have been wrong, not protected by RFRA, if he had refused to sell any cake to a homosexual...right? Why? Why is that your distinction?

"Why are we making the gays a special class other than for political
motives? Liberal mafia! No facts they are born that way."

Well now you are just throwing sht in the wind. This is extremely simple, try this: Can you think of another classification that has no "facts that they are born that way"? What is Religion, Alex?

"We just want it
over the the rights of others."

We just want what over the rights of others? Homosexuality?

"I say lets us use that argument for
pedophiles, Kleptomaniacs, polygamy,etc. Lets go easy on them they are
born that way. "

Wait, what? Let's do use that "argument" for pedophiles and kleptomaniacs. What "argument" are you talking about? The argument that homosexuals should be a protected class? I get it, it makes you feel "right" when you can compare homosexuality to pedophilia and kleptomania, hell throw in bestiality. One is not a crime (homosexuality) and the others are...because of consent. A person having nonconsensual sex with a minor is a criminal, a person stealing is a criminal, a person banging a cow is a criminal...none of those things are consensual. I know you don't want to/can't see that distinction, but your argument is bunk.

But this was brought up in another thread, a person's thoughts don't make them a criminal, their actions do. A person with pedophiliac tendencies is not a criminal without acting on them. Is that "going easy on them"?

"As a side note this line of thinking is a belief of many
like Dawkins "that we are just dancing to our own DNA" just chemicals in
motion. It is so incoherent. When you invent a right the consequences
are you must take the rights away from others. These others have
constitutional rights in writing."

I like that homosexuality, to you, is an "invented right", but none of the others (speech, religion, etc.) aren't. What makes one an "invented right" and the others not? Is being black an "invented right"? Clearly not, there is no "right" to be black, we have a right to equal treatment under the law, and we have specifically codified race as a protected class. Many states have specifically codified sexuality as a protected class.

" I would not want anyone religious to
promote by force of government something that goes against their belief.
Hobby Lobby anyone. "

Who gets to determine their "beliefs"? A Congressional committee? You? If you can't investigate the sincerity of their beliefs then you must necessarily take them at face value, then why can't there be "religious beliefs" about everything...including refusal of a social security number or refusal to pay taxes or refusal of medical care for a child...you know, all things that the Courts have ruled against...and most people (likely you included) agree with.

Are you ok with people opting out of paying taxes due to religious beliefs?

"Showing how intolerant, hateful, and liars they are and to see how easily the public is swayed by such lies."

I love this line. You, apparently, are the victim. You play it well.

"I guess it was not
the religious that were the driving force to free slaves. "

Wait,
you are claiming that religion freed the slaves? Are you thinking that
slave-owners and the "south" in general were not religious? Is this a
serious claim?