Big ten
- Thread starter chaoshawk
- Start date
Yes, I did. You must have missed it. Here:
But I saw this funny video on this very topic. http://louderwithcrowder.com/hitlerreacts-to-denied-gayweddingcake/
This post was edited on 4/8 10:35 AM by IronFist1776
I didn't answer because its a clown question, bro. I'll let you figure it out fr yrself.
But I saw this funny video on this very topic. http://louderwithcrowder.com/hitlerreacts-to-denied-gayweddingcake/
This post was edited on 4/8 10:35 AM by IronFist1776
Except that are also atheists who reject the gay lifestyle so one's faith or lack thereof, isn't the sole determining factor regarding one's position on this topic
You further demonstrate your utter lack of comprehending discrimination. At least twice you have claimed that turning away a homosexual for being homosexual and getting married is not discrimination. In fact you said it "blows your mind" that anyone would actually define it as discrimination.
Let me post a brief definition:
"the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."
That would be the very first thing that google brought up. But, maybe you don't know what "prejudicial" means, so let me post that as well:
"harmful to someone or something; detrimental."
I presume this is happening to you:
Totally agree. The discrimination and bullying against people of faith (well, mainly Christians) needs to stop. Maybe someday the communist-in-chief will stop hating on Israel and Christians and focus some of that hate on Iran and Islamic extremists? Naaahhhhhhh.
"Someone has a religion of hating women, therefore no service to women.
When we go down that rabbithole, it just doesn't work. So, more
importantly, I'd say the denial isn't "based on religion", but the
message."
In theory, maybe, in practice no. A business that doesn't service to women isn't going to be in business long. If they are discriminating against women the women's groups and others are free to boycott, picket, etc these businesses.
To me this is why this whole debate is silly. From what I've read the law is basically the same as the federal law. If discrimination of gays was the goal then why haven't we heard of cases before now? I have yet to read a single case where a gay person was denied service based solely on their sexual orientation. Besides, the Indiana law doesn't automatically let businesses discriminate based on religious grounds it just allows them to bring their case before a judge and see if they meet the threshold required by the law. A balancing of rights.
People compare this to a throwback to whites only drinking fountains, etc. Nonsense. The Jim Crow laws were gov't mandated discrimination. If I was a business owner I couldn't serve blacks and whites. As a result of the history of Jim Crow and the gov't involvement in those laws, the civil rights laws made sense to help reverse the discrimination. It simply isn't the case with gays and gay marriage. Even without civil rights protection against businesses discriminating against them, there just isn't the public support to discriminate against gays in any widespread manner. It doesn't make good business sense to do this as a matter of business. An owner isn't going to fail to serve a gay couple a meal or offer them a room in their hotel. And in the unlikely event you could find the rare bird who did this you find a hundred owners who would be more than happy to offer their services to the gay person/couple.
"People getting married isn't a message, certainly people celebrating
that marriage isn't a message either. Therefore a cake denoting that
marriage is not a message. Turning down a gay-marriage participant
would be turning them down for being homosexual...not for their message."
I disagree with this statement unless I'm misunderstanding your point. The cake is absolutely denoting a message. Otherwise why would a gay couple go to a baker who they know thinks their wedding is a sin, etc? Why not go to one of the other 99% of bakers who would be more than happy to celebrate your festive occasion by making your cake? Would a black couple go to white supremacists bakery to make their wedding cake? Would a Jewish couple go to a bakery run by Neo Nazis?
You seem to be saying that because it is 1% vs. 99% (your numbers) it is ok. The question on civil rights, as it often is, is larger than the statistics in question, and even 1% should be seen as a "bad thing."
You talk about a "white supremacist" or "neo nazi" bakery, but in legal terms, in civil rights terms, there isn't such a thing, they are bakeries serving in public accommodation. Once they choose to be in public accommodation they follow the rules that have been set. Obviously that is simplistic, but I think it is necessary to discuss your claim.
Realistically? Sure, they should go to a baker that would serve them, but that isn't really the point. The point is whether, if allowed, they could be denied by every bakery. You seem to, again realistically, ignore that, because you believe it is 99% vs. 1%. So, I will ask this:
At what percent would you begin to get involved? 50% denial of service? 80%? 99%?
This is an interesting topic, and I know it feels better for some people to label me/pigeon hole me to certain beliefs, but I can tell you that I will be happy to stand up for religious beliefs. Just yesterday the Register was reporting on the Dowling Catholic school students who walked out because they were not hiring a homosexual teacher. My first reaction? Good for those students standing up for what they believe in. My second, but equal, reaction? Good for Dowling/diocese not giving in and standing on their beliefs.
The point of that stupid anecdote is that I am firmly in the corner of religious-based discrimination within religious entities. The discussion is what are religious entities. A religious/private catholic school most certainly falls within that. Hobby Lobby does not.
If I were to try and succinctly define my stance on the issue in this thread re: religious-based discrimination in public accommodation it would be like this:
Those who join the "marketplace" of public accommodation must follow the rules that we set out for it, more importantly being a rule banning specific discrimination rooted in civil rights. I would then classify the line that needed to be drawn of religious-belief vs. discrimination as that of performance. Baking a cake with a penis entering an anus might be considered performance in relation to the act that is seen as against-their-religious-belief, but baking a cake that says "Wedding!" would not (especially a pre-made cake). This would then necessarily encompass a person asking a "KKK bakery" to make a dave chappelle black-Klan-member cake. This would include a photographer shooting an actual wedding ceremony, but not of portraits, in general. It would, probably, not include a caterer who simply prepares and delivers and serves food, but it would if they served tiny sausage penises.
No person has a right to the fruits of another's labor. Once you go down the road of "protected classes" with whom all others must transact business regardless of their desire to do so,the question merely becomes one of controlling the political process that decides the identity of the groups or individuals that are to be protected.
Liberals/"progressives" cannot deny this self evident truth and rely, instead, on anger or guilt to silence principle based opposition to racial/sexual/religious (etc...) legal privilege. The American mind reflexively and almost inherently believes that everyone needs to have equal standing before the law and it takes a lot of politically correct screaming to keep people from demanding equal rights for everyone, special legal rights for no one, and a government that protects the rights of all the citizens.
Consider this hypothetical: should a Christian framing shop have to frame a Robert Maplethorpe painting?
Liberals/"progressives" cannot deny this self evident truth and rely, instead, on anger or guilt to silence principle based opposition to racial/sexual/religious (etc...) legal privilege. The American mind reflexively and almost inherently believes that everyone needs to have equal standing before the law and it takes a lot of politically correct screaming to keep people from demanding equal rights for everyone, special legal rights for no one, and a government that protects the rights of all the citizens.
Consider this hypothetical: should a Christian framing shop have to frame a Robert Maplethorpe painting?
1) I don't really care what people think here. I haven't read through 4 pages of posts and I know what people are already going to say. The law IS the issue and the media outcry (lying about the law). I'm not sure what you are saying in the first sentence. The federal law applies to the feds, not the states. So, the Hobby Lobby company was protected from the feds violating their religious freedom, but not the state. Hence the need (or desire) for the state law. As to why Indiana officials revised the law, it's because they are dopes who caved under public pressure from people who have no freakin' idea what the law is even about. It's a PR move.
2) The Jim Crow laws mandated discrimination. It was sanctioned by the gov't and those who tried to do business with blacks were in violation of the law. Does this mean there would have been no discrimination if there were no Jim Crow laws? Of course not. However, would we have needed civil rights laws without Jim Crow? I'm not sure. Eventually it would have made bad business sense to not do business with as many customers as possible. We'll never know but the gov't certainly made things much worse than if we had let people enter into contracts/associations of their own will. Gay activists have compared their cause with the civil rights movements. They aren't close to the same thing.
3) Why do you presume they didn't know the religious beliefs of the bakers and their stance on gay marriage? Let's say they didn't know (and I"m skeptical of that fact). Why would you want someone making your cake who openly opposes your wedding? Again, if you were a black man would you go to a baker who's a known bigot? Of course this is about message. It's not about finding a baker who will make the cake but forcing this baker to participate in the event that contradicts their religious beliefs. So, in an effort to stamp out discrimination of gays we have now possibly violated the religious liberty of a business. Who is more harmed? They gay couple can get the cake made by a hundred other bakeries.
4) I'm not making legal arguments. I think the courts have totally screwed up the civil rights cases. As I said earlier, with blacks it made sense because of gov't involvement in slavery and JIm Crow laws, so it institutionalized discrimination. A remedy made sense in this case. I don't believe this is the case for gender and sexual orientation. And the use of insterstate commerce clause to justify this totalitarian state is wrong imo, especially since the courts have bastardized interstate commerce to mean any business. Let people do business with those they desire. The market will take care of it. The law is unnecessary.
I don't think the gov't should be involved at all in telling a bakery who they should service, however, the courts have screwed that pooch. So, now we are dealing with competing rights. The right of the protected class to be free from discrimination and a business owner to preserve their religious liberty. I go back to my earlier question? Who has been harmed more, the baker who's religious liberty has been violated, or the gay couple who can get their cake at another bakery? This law would only allow the business to make a case before the court and let a judge rule on it's merits, it wouldn't provide defacto discrimination of gays for whomever claim their religious liberty had been violated.
Sorry, I have a serious distrust of the gov't. This is an issue that could be handled without the gov't/court interference. If a baker refused to make gay couple wedding cakes, the word would get out and gays wouldn't buy ANY cakes at that bakery and likely many of their friends (including non-gay) wouldn't either. If a baker was treating gays poorly they wouldn't be in business very long. I understand all the legal arguments, my point is only they aren't needed. This issue can be dealt with in the court of public opinion and by a language we all speak, money.
5) The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Just because you are a business doesn't mean you lose your religious liberties. Not every business owner checks their religious beliefs at the door. What about the owner of a religious supply store? Should they have to violate their religious liberty to satisfy the whims of a tyrannical gov't (think the Obamacare birth control mandate)?
"Baking a cake with a penis entering an anus might be considered
performance in relation to the act that is seen as
against-their-religious-belief, but baking a cake that says "Wedding!"
would not (especially a pre-made cake). "
I know this isn't your intent but you've perfectly described how silly and complicated the law is and how unnecessary it is in this situation. It's like we need a flowchart, if you do A then go to B but otherwise go to C. It's insane. Let the market take care of this instead of the clunky big hand of gov't.
By the way, my comments aren't meant to say if I was a baker I'd refuse to make a cake for a gay marriage. It wouldn't violate my religious beliefs. My point is only that those who are protesting the Indiana law are mostly whack jobs and pot stirrers in my opinion. They don't realize the law is basically what the federal law, only it applies to the state, and they can't cite ONE example of a homosexual being discriminated in the manner their scare tactics of what this law will bring. It's much ado about nothing. This is all about raising money for the gay lobby and getting votes for the Dems. They are demagoging the issue just like we see with the "hands up, don't shoot" bs. It's no different with the women's groups who create hysteria about a "rape culture" on college campuses and happily go along with fake rape stories, because the important thing is the issue, not the facts.
Case-in-point right here Phantom. You only need to read posts like this to understand that it isn't, actually, about the law.
With your hypothetical, I'm not sure you understand the issue. On what basis wouldn't a "Christian" framing shop be allowed to frame a Robert Maplethorpe painting?
1a) That is your opinion and you couldn't be more wrong. The law is almost word for word what the federal law is. As for Indiana changing it "to protect against discrimination" that is just caving under public pressure. It doesn't mean the law was poorly written, it means the gay lobby has won the PR to misrepresent the law. As for "there are people out there who were defending the law on the
very basis of discriminating against homosexuals...thereby necessitating
this discussion.". Who is doing this? Some idiots on a message board? Who cares? The law is the same as the federal law. Please cite for me the examples of discrimination going on in Indiana prior to this law. Why do you keep misrepresenting the law. At it would do is allow a baker to go to court and argue that their religious liberty has be violated if they have to bake a gay to celebrate a gay wedding. Most likely they will lose but it will give them a hearing . They aren't discriminating against gays for being gay (they are making cakes for gays), they just find it against their religious beliefs to celebrate in the wedding of a gay couple. The court would decide if they've met the necessary standard.
1b) Don't be so naive. The law was meant to protect religious liberty in the states. The USSC stated in the Hobby Lobby opinion that the states COULD set up state birth control mandates that would not violate RFRA. Hence the need for a similar law at the state level. We know politicians are so great at telling the truth and politics never enter their decision making, especially after a national beatdown and threats of boycotts from people who had no freaking clue what was in the law. Don't be so gullible. Pence was backtracking strictly for political reasons, much like Congress has done on gov't shutdowns. You are a smart enough guy to see politics where it exists.
2a) Why do you assume differently. The states institutionalized discrimination via slavery and Jim Crow. Apples to cinder blocks in the case of gays. Why would businesses have not discriminated? Because smart investors wouldn't have and would have hurt the bottom line of companies that didn't do business with blacks.
2b) LOL. You are putting words in my mouth and ignored other things I've said. You don't think hundreds of years of slavery and decades of Jim Crow institutionalized discrimination in this country? Of course the discrimination didn't disappear overnight, the law didn't change hearts and minds immediately. It took time. However it was the GOVT discrimination that caused the problem, not the market. There's no evidence that if we didn't have slavery (exacerbated by JIm Crow laws) that we would have had the rampant discrimination in this country. Most likely people would have been much more agreeable to enter into contracts with people of different races.
Still, the gay situation isn't even remotely similar to the civil rights of blacks. Blacks were forced to go to different schools (inferior), drink from different drinking fountains, sit at the back of the bus, sleep in different hotels, etc. This has not been the case with gays. The remedy for blacks was appropriate because of the errors of the totalitarian gov't actions. However, this isn't the case with gays.
3a) Agree, I don't think it should be protected. Of course the motives matter when assessing damage. What damage has been done if a baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay marriage? Of course their actions are a activist and rabble rousing. I've already said I"m not making a legal argument. The court would have to decide whether baking a wedding violates a person religious liberty. Neither one of us can argue that definitively. I'm more interested in the motive. What is the point? The point is the gay community doesn't just want acceptance they want approval of gay marriage. If you disagree with this view you are to be called a homophobe, put out of business, etc. Ironically it is the left who is intolerant of different viewpoints. They have become the modern day McCarthyites. This is why you see speech codes at newspapers and college campuses and why conservative speakers are shouted down at universities.
3b) Yes, I don't believe the law is any longer needed. However, the law is the law. I've already stated why I have little problem with civil rights laws applying to races, I do have a problem with it applying for sexual orientation. Remember, the people making cakes aren't not selling these cakes to gays. If they come in and want a birthday cake or whatever, they are selling them cakes. They just don't want to sell them a wedding cake for religious reasons. You've already said that if the gay couple wanted cake with a penis and butt on it they wouldn't have to make it. There are already limits. Should a Jewish deli have to cater a luncheon for the Nation of Islam in which Farakhann is going to give a talk about how Israel should be destroyed?
4a) The law is unnecessary in regards to sexual orientation.
4b) That is only true if you believe that certain things are
actually affecting religious liberty, which is largely the discussion
taking place. Thats why questions about race is brought up: Should a
"baker" be allowed to not serve blacks based on "religious liberty"?
Most people would laugh and say "no", which is why most proponents of
this work so hard to say that homosexuals =/= blacks and therefore they
won't discuss it in that context.
If we go down the road of
"religious liberty" = freedom of contract/association, even in public
accommodation, then nobody, literally nobody, could be protected.
Nonsense. Please cite examples of me where gays have been denied a cake just for being gay. You argument is a fallacious one. The law wouldn't protect a baker from selling a cake to a gay man, it "may" protect a baker from selling a wedding cake to a gay couple. Again, it would let the court hear the arguments and decide if the standards have been met to exempt the discrimination on religious grounds. It doesn't give free reign of gays. It will be difficult for a business to meet the standards needed to claim a violation of religious liberty. This is the right way to handle this issue. Instead of giving an automatic "no", the law let's people have their day in court to argue their case. As a lawyer I'm shocked you are against this especially we have competing rights being argued. I know you are firmly rooted in the gay right cause but the hysteria in your final sentence shows either you have an incredible weak grasp of the law or you are too biased to argue rationally. The law is almost identical to the federal law. I don't see you screaming for a repeal of the fed law or the world is going to fall apart if it's not repealed.
4c) Totally disagree with you the law wasn't necessary and the opinion Hobby Lobby spells this out clearly. The birth control mandated was ruled unconstitutional because it violated the fed RFRA, however, a state could set up this mandate and it would not violate the fed RFRA. The state laws are absolutely necessary. The boycotting of Indiana was ridiculous. None of the boycotters even understood the law and were just whipping up hysteria. This was nothing more than raising campaign dollars for the left. It's the continuation of the shameful tactic that is so often used by the left like in the U Va fake rape case or the "Hands up, don't shoot". You should learn to be more cynical and see things through a more critical eye.
5a) And who makes the determination when my religious liberties are being infringed? You? Just because you don't think it violates a person's religious liberty doesn't make it so. Let the courts hash it out after hearing evidence.
5b) Not fear mongering. We have a tyrannical gov't. When the gov't forces me to buy a product (health insurance) and then forces me to violate my religious liberty then we have tyranny. When the President institutes quasi-amnesty without the approval of Congress or enters into deals with Iran without Congressional approval, it's tyranny.
5c) No, they aren't. First off they know the rules when they go to work for a company like Hobby Lobby. They know their beliefs. They are free to purchase insurance elsewhere or go to work for another company that is more in line with your beliefs. In other words, they have options. Under your scenario Hobby Lobby has no option but to violate the religious beliefs on a daily basis or close their business. You are letting you bias cloud your reasoning. Besides, why are you rehashing Hobby Lobby since the court ruled on this and didn't agree with your reasoning?
5d) Protect them from what? Having to buy a wedding cake at a company who would love to have their business. LOL. You are the knight in shining armor.
Whack jobs and pot stirrers:
NCAA
Big Ten
Charles Barkley
Tim Cook (Apple CEO)
the State of Connecticut
and on and on and on
Yes, some of these a full fledged whack jobs, others political opportunists, and others caving into political correctness. These same dopes would have been the first in line to hang fraternities at U. of Va and the culture of rape on college campuses. Good grief, the McCarthyites are strong and are winning the battle. These people are cowards, it takes courage to stand up against the tide of political correctness. They don't even have a clue what's in the Indiana law (I think Cook admitted as much saying he got his information about the law from others). It's like the dopey Hollywood people chiming in on some political issue. The people have a right to do so but they look stupid doing it. I don't expect any better from these lower forms of life, however, I do expect my politicians to have a little more back bone than Mike Pence did. It's a shame a few zealots are able to bring so many people to their knees It's actually sad. Ironically, all they've done is drove the real bigots into the closet. They have changed hearts and minds they've just made them keep their mouths shut. I'd rather the idiots/bigots speak their mind and we can have a frank/honest dialogue, but I'm kind of weird about the free speech thing. I kind of think it's a nice concept even when people disagree with me.
"5a) And who makes the determination when my religious liberties are being infringed? You? Just because you don't think it violates a person's religious liberty doesn't make it so. Let the courts hash it out after hearing evidence. "
This is an interesting claim Phantom.
I urge you to scroll this thread and read the letter from legal experts, largely from Indiana, who discuss this exact thing: how this law, specific to Indiana, will interfere with longstanding jurisprudence and Indiana's careful balancing of religious liberties / public accommodation rights.
They urged lawmakers to let the courts "hash it out", just as you are claiming...arguing against exactly what you are trying to.
You seem to think that, without RFRA, there was no religious liberty challenges. That is what is "fallacious."
This is an interesting claim Phantom.
I urge you to scroll this thread and read the letter from legal experts, largely from Indiana, who discuss this exact thing: how this law, specific to Indiana, will interfere with longstanding jurisprudence and Indiana's careful balancing of religious liberties / public accommodation rights.
They urged lawmakers to let the courts "hash it out", just as you are claiming...arguing against exactly what you are trying to.
You seem to think that, without RFRA, there was no religious liberty challenges. That is what is "fallacious."
@the iowa hawk
All you have done in this thread is show how you are anti freedom and how subjective the left is on what is right and wrong. God help us if we are to stay free. I would believe you would say mans capable to figuring it all out. Utopia come hell or high water.
All you have done in this thread is show how you are anti freedom and how subjective the left is on what is right and wrong. God help us if we are to stay free. I would believe you would say mans capable to figuring it all out. Utopia come hell or high water.
Um, guys, you realize that Indiana fixed this thing over a week ago don't you?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/02/politics/indiana-religious-freedom-law-fix/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/02/politics/indiana-religious-freedom-law-fix/index.html
"You seem to think that, without RFRA, there was no religious liberty challenges. That is what is "fallacious.""
Nope, not once have I made this claim. However, the law does serve an important purpose, which is to protect religious liberty, which is why the fed RFRA was written. The sponsors of the bill were diehard liberals, like Ted Kennedy and Chuckie Schumer, and signed into law by the first "black president", Bill Clinton. They didn't pass this bill because they had nothing better to do with their free time. You might want to do a little research of your own on what is happening to the people who refused to sell a made to order cake or flowers for a gay couple's wedding.
The NCAA should have kept their nose out of this issue. Keep politics out of sports as much as possible. There are 19 states that have basically identical laws to what Indiana was seeking. Has the NCAA boycotted those states? Has the republic crumbled in these states, or rampant discrimination? NO!!! Which is why the loony left is unable to cite specific cases in these states. It's nothing but hysteria from the extreme left. It's another reason I hate the NCAA. A worthless body that caves into political correctness as it's first opportunity. It's no different then the liberals who were falling all over themselves with the Rolling Stone article on U Va "Campus rape crisis". The left lapped up the story like the dopes they are and then when it was exposed for a fraud the mantra became, "the truth doesn't matter, it brought awareness to the rape problem on college campuses". It's basically what you are doing. It doesn't matter if there are any gays being discriminated or if religious people's rights are being violated. The former always trumps the latter. You are a fan of totalitarian gov't. I get it.
"I urge you to scroll this thread and read the letter from legal experts,
largely from Indiana, who discuss this exact thing: how this law,
specific to Indiana, will interfere with longstanding jurisprudence and
Indiana's careful balancing of religious liberties / public
accommodation rights."
Good grief. Who cares? A bunch of ACLU lawyers who've never found a Christian they wouldn't like to violate their religious freedoms. There are plenty of "legal experts" who disagree with interpretation of these lawyers.
Holy false narrative batman! What a ridiculous post, even from you Phantom.
First, you try to back off your claim that Courts couldn't make a meritorious determination before the Indiana RFRA by saying, "Nope, not once have I made this claim", except her was your claim:
"This law would only allow the business to make a case before the court and let a judge rule on it's merits...."
A Judge COULD rule on the merits, and they did. Seriously go back and read what I urged you to. It was lawyers from Indiana who are experts in Indiana law and the relationship between religious rights and accommodation. They are saying that this law, specific to Indiana, throws out a generation of precedent that struck an appropriate balance.
Oh, I forgot, instead of reading what they wrote, you say this:
"Good grief. Who cares? A bunch of ACLU lawyers who've
never found a Christian they wouldn't like to violate their religious
freedoms. There are plenty of "legal experts" who disagree with
interpretation of these lawyers. "
I forgot, you ignore anyone who espouses a stance different than yours. And when they are qualified to do so? Ignore them and call them names. And then you can't even point to Indiana lawyers who "disagree", even though you say there are plenty of them.
You are forgetting that this is specific to INDIANA. Point to other states and the fed all you want, this was about Indiana. The legal experts were discussing INDIANA and INDIANA caselaw.
And then you continue with the false narrative that all of these others states have identical laws! Therefore hypocrisy! And you do this all while knowingly ignoring the protections that are built in specifically for sexual orientation.
Then, most amazingly of all your statements, you imply that the Indiana legislators liars, and that they caved. This ignores the very real possibility that, you know, THEY DIDN'T WANT THEIR RFRA TO MEAN WHAT WAS BEING CLAIMED....so they changed it. But, to you, they are a "Worthless body caving to political correctness."
If the law wasn't meant to discriminate based on sexual orientation (because of "religious objection")...then why are you arguing for it in the same post? You can't say: I don't think it allows discrimination....but this discrimination should be allowed to take place under this law, and expect to be taken seriously.
Even with all of that drivel you posted, none of it points to a "totalitarian government." You fall prey to the most simple of fallacies: Something must be completely evil in order for you to complain about it, therefore the opponents of this law must be evil, manipulative, totalitarian muckitymucks...they can't just be reasonable people believing that the law was wrong.
But, since you claim that Indiana was no different than any others, would you like to have a conversation about the history of protected classes, discrimination, religious liberty, and public accommodation under Indiana's long judicial and legislative history?
Or how about you pick a State that makes this hypocrisy and we will discuss whether it is, in fact, different, and you simply "lapped up", as you say, the drivel from conservative media?
I mean, hell, Illinois is a RFRA state, right? They should be a good example.
775 ILCS 35/) Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Do you contend it is identical to Indiana's? That it is applied exactly the same?
775 ILCS 5/) Illinois Human Rights Act.
(A) Freedom from Unlawful Discrimination. To secure for all individuals
within Illinois the freedom from discrimination against any individual because
of his or her race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, order of protection status,
marital status, physical or mental disability, military
status, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or unfavorable
discharge from military service in connection with employment, real estate
transactions, access to financial credit, and the availability of public
accommodations.
Well, sht, that doesn't seem to be the same as in Indiana after all. Should we go look at a different state instead?
Maybe we should look at those scoundrel Connecticutonians and their hypocrisy! They have a RFRA!
Sec. 46a-81d. Sexual orientation discrimination: Public accommodations.[/URL] (a)
It shall be a discriminatory practice in violation of this section: (1) To deny any person
within the jurisdiction of this state full and equal accommodations in any place of public
accommodation, resort or amusement because of such person's sexual orientation or
civil union status, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and
applicable alike to all persons; or (2) to discriminate, segregate or separate on account
of sexual orientation or civil union status.
Well crap on a cracker.
First, you try to back off your claim that Courts couldn't make a meritorious determination before the Indiana RFRA by saying, "Nope, not once have I made this claim", except her was your claim:
"This law would only allow the business to make a case before the court and let a judge rule on it's merits...."
A Judge COULD rule on the merits, and they did. Seriously go back and read what I urged you to. It was lawyers from Indiana who are experts in Indiana law and the relationship between religious rights and accommodation. They are saying that this law, specific to Indiana, throws out a generation of precedent that struck an appropriate balance.
Oh, I forgot, instead of reading what they wrote, you say this:
"Good grief. Who cares? A bunch of ACLU lawyers who've
never found a Christian they wouldn't like to violate their religious
freedoms. There are plenty of "legal experts" who disagree with
interpretation of these lawyers. "
I forgot, you ignore anyone who espouses a stance different than yours. And when they are qualified to do so? Ignore them and call them names. And then you can't even point to Indiana lawyers who "disagree", even though you say there are plenty of them.
You are forgetting that this is specific to INDIANA. Point to other states and the fed all you want, this was about Indiana. The legal experts were discussing INDIANA and INDIANA caselaw.
And then you continue with the false narrative that all of these others states have identical laws! Therefore hypocrisy! And you do this all while knowingly ignoring the protections that are built in specifically for sexual orientation.
Then, most amazingly of all your statements, you imply that the Indiana legislators liars, and that they caved. This ignores the very real possibility that, you know, THEY DIDN'T WANT THEIR RFRA TO MEAN WHAT WAS BEING CLAIMED....so they changed it. But, to you, they are a "Worthless body caving to political correctness."
If the law wasn't meant to discriminate based on sexual orientation (because of "religious objection")...then why are you arguing for it in the same post? You can't say: I don't think it allows discrimination....but this discrimination should be allowed to take place under this law, and expect to be taken seriously.
Even with all of that drivel you posted, none of it points to a "totalitarian government." You fall prey to the most simple of fallacies: Something must be completely evil in order for you to complain about it, therefore the opponents of this law must be evil, manipulative, totalitarian muckitymucks...they can't just be reasonable people believing that the law was wrong.
But, since you claim that Indiana was no different than any others, would you like to have a conversation about the history of protected classes, discrimination, religious liberty, and public accommodation under Indiana's long judicial and legislative history?
Or how about you pick a State that makes this hypocrisy and we will discuss whether it is, in fact, different, and you simply "lapped up", as you say, the drivel from conservative media?
I mean, hell, Illinois is a RFRA state, right? They should be a good example.
775 ILCS 35/) Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Do you contend it is identical to Indiana's? That it is applied exactly the same?
775 ILCS 5/) Illinois Human Rights Act.
(A) Freedom from Unlawful Discrimination. To secure for all individuals
within Illinois the freedom from discrimination against any individual because
of his or her race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, order of protection status,
marital status, physical or mental disability, military
status, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or unfavorable
discharge from military service in connection with employment, real estate
transactions, access to financial credit, and the availability of public
accommodations.
Well, sht, that doesn't seem to be the same as in Indiana after all. Should we go look at a different state instead?
Maybe we should look at those scoundrel Connecticutonians and their hypocrisy! They have a RFRA!
Sec. 46a-81d. Sexual orientation discrimination: Public accommodations.[/URL] (a)
It shall be a discriminatory practice in violation of this section: (1) To deny any person
within the jurisdiction of this state full and equal accommodations in any place of public
accommodation, resort or amusement because of such person's sexual orientation or
civil union status, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and
applicable alike to all persons; or (2) to discriminate, segregate or separate on account
of sexual orientation or civil union status.
Well crap on a cracker.
I just don't understand why this issue riles folks up. How does gay marriage effect a straight person? I can't think of one negative effect on my life that is created by legalized gay marriage ect...
Just folks projecting their morality on others....
Just folks projecting their morality on others....
What a great post. It blames the POTUS for the Indiana State Legislature's passing and then amending of a law.
Then it makes an obnoxiously, fallacious argument.
Pray tell HR, do you not understand the law in question.....like at all?
My two cents, the Christian ideals are these in Romans, For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And in Matthew, Judge ye not, or you will be judged. Selling baked goods (a wedding cake) or catering or beverages to a gay couple is not interfering with the bakers religious freedom, the celebration is after the wedding not a part of the ceremony or an article of faith. Whether that faith is Christian, Jewish, or any other. At least in the Christian faith no one has the right to judge whether my sin is greater than yours. If you describe yourself as Christian you need to stick to the New Testament because Christ superseded the laws specified in the Old Testament, if we had to stick to all of them, to not sin, we'd have all been stoned to death a long time ago.
Maybe it's been a while since some have seen a wedding cake. They don't always have anything written on them or have figures on them. So there is no messaging. So it comes down to this, could this bakery choose to whom they can sell to if they sell to the public. The law is clear that they cannot. That is is the sin of all the sins that they get to choose to object to. Again the cake is not religious its for the party after. If they object to this kind of cake, do they also object to cakes for people who have divorced and remarried, or have a civil ceremony not involving religion, or a cake used by people celebrating a polygamous wedding.
If you are going to decide on this based on your religious/moral framework then they have to be consistent and include all sins to make this exclusion.
Maybe it's been a while since some have seen a wedding cake. They don't always have anything written on them or have figures on them. So there is no messaging. So it comes down to this, could this bakery choose to whom they can sell to if they sell to the public. The law is clear that they cannot. That is is the sin of all the sins that they get to choose to object to. Again the cake is not religious its for the party after. If they object to this kind of cake, do they also object to cakes for people who have divorced and remarried, or have a civil ceremony not involving religion, or a cake used by people celebrating a polygamous wedding.
If you are going to decide on this based on your religious/moral framework then they have to be consistent and include all sins to make this exclusion.
To me, this is what is so dangerous about this issue.
We really should NOT be determining what people's religious beliefs are.
It is completely plausible that someone's PERSONAL religious belief, a subsect of standard Christianity, only believes gay marriage is a sin...not divorce, not polygamy, not adultery, not other similar things. And I don't really want the government investigating and determining what their "religious beliefs" are and aren't. We should just trust them.
It would have been very easy 239 years ago to determine that people must just be Christians...and then specifically delineate Christian ideals and beliefs. Thankfully, the founders were more intelligent than that, they didn't define, nor specify religion.
That is, partly, why I think it is better, and easier, to have standard public accommodation laws, which often protect specific groups of people. If you sell in the public marketplace, you must not discriminate (within reason). It is your choice to step outside of your "church" and sell to the public, whom, 99% of the time, you know nothing about. It isn't logical to believe that unknowingly/unintentionally selling a wedding cake to a gay marriage is not a sin...whereas selling to knowingly to a gay marriage is a sin...........if the act itself is the sin. I don't know these people's religion, maybe intent really does matter. If you don't intend to adulterer, it isn't a problem. If you don't intend to take false idols, it isn't a sin. Who knows, who am I to decide that?
I will stand up for any religious organization that wants to discriminate, and discriminate in any which way they please. I also will stand up for any person acting solely within themselves in a religious belief or ritual (or with consenting parties).
For example: I will stand up for a Native American who wants to take peyote as part of his religious observance. You know, the actual case that sparked the federal RFRA, Smith, 494 US 872.
I don't think discriminating against another in public accommodation is necessary to protect religious observance, nor a path that we even want to go down.
Supporters of RFRA, like Phantom in this thread, seem to believe that RFRA is necessary to raise the First Amendment in court cases....it isn't. And they still wouldn't be happy if the Court ruled against them, then they would want specific protections, codifying their discrimination.
It is, imo, akin to "stand your ground." We have had self-defense statutes for a very long time, and I strongly support them (along with 2nd Am. rights). But, that wasn't, isn't enough for some people. They actually want to codify their acts, immunizing them from prosecution. Not only is it not necessary in both of these instances, it is extremely dangerous.
Great article for theFascistHawk. Its pure truth, so you'll hate it
and disagree with it but its nice to see something w/out a regressive spin on it.
http://personalliberty.com/the-freedom-to-discriminate-is-essential-to-liberty/
and disagree with it but its nice to see something w/out a regressive spin on it.
http://personalliberty.com/the-freedom-to-discriminate-is-essential-to-liberty/
Here's the circumstance. Gay man walks into a framing shot to get their prize Maplethorpe painting of a man's hand up another man's ass. The framer says no way I will frame that obscenity but has framed naked prints of the Marilyn Monroe
All of the elements of a statutory discrimination suit are met. (1) protected class-sexual orientation or preference; (2) refusal to frame homosexual art; (3) history of framing what could be readily described as heterosexual art; (4) homosexual man claims mental or emotional injury.
That is the very slippery slope we travel when group rights are deemed more important that individual rights.[/B]
All of the elements of a statutory discrimination suit are met. (1) protected class-sexual orientation or preference; (2) refusal to frame homosexual art; (3) history of framing what could be readily described as heterosexual art; (4) homosexual man claims mental or emotional injury.
That is the very slippery slope we travel when group rights are deemed more important that individual rights.[/B]
Well said. I am glad that the founders of our country were wise enough to realize freedom of religion does not mean imposing your beliefs on others.
An unfortunate side effect of extreme religious views is the impact it is having on non-believers and those who might believe in God, but don't worship regularly. As Christians, we are supposed to help others find a closer relationship with God, not drive them away.
Serious question: How are those of you who identify themselves as Christians, being discriminated against in the USA?
Dan, you might want to check out some different churches. Some emphasize the overall message of love and inclusiveness in the New Testament, rather than cherry picking beliefs that fit their political agenda.
Except no one's driving gays away from anything. People are refusing to participste in something they find immoral. The loony left is making something out of notjing which is their MO.
As far as Christians beung discriminated against is the forced indoctrination of evolution being taught as fact in schools. Evolution is simply state sponsored religion but no one asks if we should be made to pay for that unscientific mess. We're just expected to. Same w/ murdering unborn babies out of convenience. Every day I see stories where children are scolded by their liberal teachers simply fr mentioning God or Jesus. Some Christian students prayer groups have been forcibly disbanded because someone claimed that they weren't inclusive enough, ie, they needed gays in the group even though no gays were denied. They simply never sought to join. The same school has gay groups who get ZERO interference from the school. A valedictorian was chided by school officials because he wanted to thank God in his speech. One thing I noticed about Travis Trice, he always gived thanks to God when he would be interviewed after a win. He said that to Jimmy Jackson and Jackson couldn't end the interview fast enough. I don't know if the B1G told him to(in his ear) or if Jackson did it on his own.
Try speaking out against Islam though and the state and liberals WILL hammer you, even as Saudi Arabia beheads people, simply for being gay. But the lefty LameStreamMedia is silent on that. So I don't see a war on faith so much as a war on God/Christianity. The Apple CEO slammed Indiana fr the statute/law but he also had no problem doing business w/ Saudi Arabia.
As far as Christians beung discriminated against is the forced indoctrination of evolution being taught as fact in schools. Evolution is simply state sponsored religion but no one asks if we should be made to pay for that unscientific mess. We're just expected to. Same w/ murdering unborn babies out of convenience. Every day I see stories where children are scolded by their liberal teachers simply fr mentioning God or Jesus. Some Christian students prayer groups have been forcibly disbanded because someone claimed that they weren't inclusive enough, ie, they needed gays in the group even though no gays were denied. They simply never sought to join. The same school has gay groups who get ZERO interference from the school. A valedictorian was chided by school officials because he wanted to thank God in his speech. One thing I noticed about Travis Trice, he always gived thanks to God when he would be interviewed after a win. He said that to Jimmy Jackson and Jackson couldn't end the interview fast enough. I don't know if the B1G told him to(in his ear) or if Jackson did it on his own.
Try speaking out against Islam though and the state and liberals WILL hammer you, even as Saudi Arabia beheads people, simply for being gay. But the lefty LameStreamMedia is silent on that. So I don't see a war on faith so much as a war on God/Christianity. The Apple CEO slammed Indiana fr the statute/law but he also had no problem doing business w/ Saudi Arabia.
Well said. I am glad that the founders of our country were wise enough to realize freedom of religion does not mean imposing your beliefs on others.
An unfortunate side effect of extreme religious views is the impact it is having on non-believers and those who might believe in God, but don't worship regularly. As Christians, we are supposed to help others find a closer relationship with God, not drive them away................................................................
You realize this is not a theological debate on what Christians should or not do. Its not about religious ideas within sects of religion. It's about personal individual freedom granted by the constitution being usurped by groups who have decided they are worthy of protection at the expense of the freedom given by the constitution. If you disagree they work to use the force of government to demand compliance. You people need to use your heads and think of the consequences of allowing any such action. Laws can be good, they can be bad and they can also be tyrannical. You know this holds true, for every action their is an equal and opposite reaction. Your arm chair quarterbacks contemplating all the sports scenarios while sitting in your recliner happy as can be. When this type of issue arises you spend little with the scenarios and fall for the propaganda of the left. These greater issues will come to bite you in the arse and when it does you'll ask how did this happen?
An unfortunate side effect of extreme religious views is the impact it is having on non-believers and those who might believe in God, but don't worship regularly. As Christians, we are supposed to help others find a closer relationship with God, not drive them away................................................................
You realize this is not a theological debate on what Christians should or not do. Its not about religious ideas within sects of religion. It's about personal individual freedom granted by the constitution being usurped by groups who have decided they are worthy of protection at the expense of the freedom given by the constitution. If you disagree they work to use the force of government to demand compliance. You people need to use your heads and think of the consequences of allowing any such action. Laws can be good, they can be bad and they can also be tyrannical. You know this holds true, for every action their is an equal and opposite reaction. Your arm chair quarterbacks contemplating all the sports scenarios while sitting in your recliner happy as can be. When this type of issue arises you spend little with the scenarios and fall for the propaganda of the left. These greater issues will come to bite you in the arse and when it does you'll ask how did this happen?
You realize that this thread began because Indiana was about to pass a law purported to protect religious freedom. I think we all agree that broadly written laws only lead to more interpretation by the courts. Is that really what we need?
I am still confused about what "personal individual freedoms are being usurped". To me and many others, it seems like freedom to pick and choose who someone wants to discriminate against. Gays happen to be the most notable targeted group, but it could be just about anyone, as long as someone suggests something about them is not consistent with your "religious beliefs."
Originally posted by youflog1hawk:
Well said. I am glad that the founders of our country were wise enough to realize freedom of religion does not mean imposing your beliefs on others.
An unfortunate side effect of extreme religious views is the impact it is having on non-believers and those who might believe in God, but don't worship regularly. As Christians, we are supposed to help others find a closer relationship with God, not drive them away................................................................
You realize this is not a theological debate on what Christians should or not do. Its not about religious ideas within sects of religion. It's about personal individual freedom granted by the constitution being usurped by groups who have decided they are worthy of protection at the expense of the freedom given by the constitution. If you disagree they work to use the force of government to demand compliance. You people need to use your heads and think of the consequences of allowing any such action. Laws can be good, they can be bad and they can also be tyrannical. You know this holds true, for every action their is an equal and opposite reaction. Your arm chair quarterbacks contemplating all the sports scenarios while sitting in your recliner happy as can be. When this type of issue arises you spend little with the scenarios and fall for the propaganda of the left. These greater issues will come to bite you in the arse and when it does you'll ask how did this happen?
You realize that this thread began because Indiana was about to pass a law purported to protect religious freedom. I think we all agree that broadly written laws only lead to more interpretation by the courts. Is that really what we need?
I am still confused about what "personal individual freedoms are being usurped". To me and many others, it seems like freedom to pick and choose who someone wants to discriminate against. Gays happen to be the most notable targeted group, but it could be just about anyone, as long as someone suggests something about them is not consistent with your "religious beliefs."...................................................
This is not hard. What freedom of conscience issue do you hold sacred and in high esteem? Now if others can use the force of law to make you comply and give that up then your personal freedom has been taken away.
Well said. I am glad that the founders of our country were wise enough to realize freedom of religion does not mean imposing your beliefs on others.
An unfortunate side effect of extreme religious views is the impact it is having on non-believers and those who might believe in God, but don't worship regularly. As Christians, we are supposed to help others find a closer relationship with God, not drive them away................................................................
You realize this is not a theological debate on what Christians should or not do. Its not about religious ideas within sects of religion. It's about personal individual freedom granted by the constitution being usurped by groups who have decided they are worthy of protection at the expense of the freedom given by the constitution. If you disagree they work to use the force of government to demand compliance. You people need to use your heads and think of the consequences of allowing any such action. Laws can be good, they can be bad and they can also be tyrannical. You know this holds true, for every action their is an equal and opposite reaction. Your arm chair quarterbacks contemplating all the sports scenarios while sitting in your recliner happy as can be. When this type of issue arises you spend little with the scenarios and fall for the propaganda of the left. These greater issues will come to bite you in the arse and when it does you'll ask how did this happen?
You realize that this thread began because Indiana was about to pass a law purported to protect religious freedom. I think we all agree that broadly written laws only lead to more interpretation by the courts. Is that really what we need?
I am still confused about what "personal individual freedoms are being usurped". To me and many others, it seems like freedom to pick and choose who someone wants to discriminate against. Gays happen to be the most notable targeted group, but it could be just about anyone, as long as someone suggests something about them is not consistent with your "religious beliefs."...................................................
This is not hard. What freedom of conscience issue do you hold sacred and in high esteem? Now if others can use the force of law to make you comply and give that up then your personal freedom has been taken away.
Similar threads
