Religious Restoration Act (1993)

[22*43*51]

This needs it's own thread.

Bill and Algore on the White House lawn.

When was the last time there was this kind of unifying effort? Watch and think of the dichotomy in place today.

 

[rocketclone]

This fiasco over the past week is totally out of control and totally driven by the press. Seems like everyone is just worried whether or not a gay couple can get cupcakes at their wedding.

Is there anything else going on in the world?? I would say the talks with Iran breaking down would be news but not so much because of the gay wedding cake issue.

Kind of goes to show what is important in peoples world.

Good lord move on and go find a different baker or photographer.

 

[BlazinHawk]

Here's the difference. Progressive fascism. This whole non-story plays perfectly into the Moonbats preferred mode of operation. Victim hood.


Across the country there have been people who have asserted their religious beliefs when saying they do not want to be a part of gay marriage. What's happening is the gay couple will purposely target these businesses in order to make an example of of them and their "intolerance ". Never mind their own intolerance by insisting people not only perform whatever at a wedding or for said wedding, but it has to be ACCEPTED by the religious person. That is the height of intolerance and bigotry, and why I keep insisting that the left and their ilk are anti - religious bigots.

Worse, they have played the victim card so bad here that they have convinced people that businesses will discriminate against LGBTQ in spite of the fact that there has not been one documented case of discrimination in over 22 years.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

Here's an idea. If you don't want a culture war, don't start one.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[BlazinHawk]

Correct sooner. I've been saying that about militant gays for quite awhile.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[theiacowtipper]

Originally posted by BlazinHawk:
Here's the difference. Progressive fascism. This whole non-story plays perfectly into the Moonbats preferred mode of operation. Victim hood.


Across the country there have been people who have asserted their religious beliefs when saying they do not want to be a part of gay marriage. What's happening is the gay couple will purposely target these businesses in order to make an example of of them and their "intolerance ". Never mind their own intolerance by insisting people not only perform whatever at a wedding or for said wedding, but it has to be ACCEPTED by the religious person. That is the height of intolerance and bigotry, and why I keep insisting that the left and their ilk are anti - religious bigots.

Worse, they have played the victim card so bad here that they have convinced people that businesses will discriminate against LGBTQ in spite of the fact that there has not been one documented case of discrimination in over 22 years.


Posted from Rivals Mobile

Oh for goodness sake. Who exactly is playing the victim card? "I can't practice my religion because the mean old gay people are going to sodomize each other."

 

[ClarindaA's]

Originally posted by Sooner-Be-Dead:
Here's an idea. If you don't want a culture war, don't start one.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

could be debatable as to who started it
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

Originally posted by ClarindaA\:

Originally posted by Sooner-Be-Dead:
Here's an idea. If you don't want a culture war, don't start one.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

could be debatable as to who started it
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Did the gheys introduce that bill?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[BlazinHawk]

No. The gheys purposely targeting religious businesses and then suing and crying to the press.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[ClarindaA's]

Originally posted by Sooner-Be-Dead:

Originally posted by ClarindaA\:

Originally posted by Sooner-Be-Dead:


Here's an idea. If you don't want a culture war, don't start one.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

could be debatable as to who started it
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Did the gheys introduce that bill?

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Ffs, be smarter. These laws are a reation to the wedding cake makers, photographers etc, being hammered for not doing gay weddings. Wouldn't the whole thing been avoided had the gay couple just gone to a different baker or photography studio?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

Ok, I might give the cons the benefit of the doubt if they weren't passing all sorts of social/cultural conservative crap all over red state territory. Creation in text books, for example. Have libs pushed this evolution thing on them?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[ClarindaA's]

Originally posted by Sooner-Be-Dead:
Ok, I might give the cons the benefit of the doubt if they weren't passing all sorts of social/cultural conservative crap all over red state territory. Creation in text books, for example. Have libs pushed this evolution thing on them?

Posted from Rivals Mobile

don't change the subject...on this issue...I'm right. Much ado about nothing, and people seeking victimhood. I'm pro gay rights, marriage, etc...but cmon....this shit is gonna piss off moderate people
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[22*43*51]

If this has been in place for 22 years then there should be thousands of wedding cake examples by now, shouldn't there?








This post was edited on 4/2 10:05 AM by 22*43*51

 

[joelbc1]

Originally posted by rocketclone:

This fiasco over the past week is totally out of control and totally driven by the press. Seems like everyone is just worried whether or not a gay couple can get cupcakes at their wedding.


The media? Really? The first I heard of this was because THE MEDIA reported that the folks from "Angie's List" were delaying a planned business expansion due to the tone of this recently passed legislation. Several other corporations/businesses joined by expressing their concern.
THE MEDIA reported the news. That is what the media does. THE MEDIA is not the big evil here rocket......You may not like the message but you don't kill the messenger.
The State of Indiana was really ignorant here. Where they ran afoul of corporate America is that they (Indiana) felt they needed a "religious freedom act" and didn't feel the need to enact legislation to protect ALL of God's children in Indiana, regardless of their life styles or life choices.
I use religion to guide ME personally........I don't judge others by how they conform (or not) with my interpretation of religion.
This story, respectfully, was NOT a media driven event. It was an event driven by ignorance and politics.

 

[22*43*51]

Originally posted by joelbc1:

THE MEDIA reported the news. That is what the media does. THE MEDIA is not the big evil here rocket......You may not like the message but you don't kill the messenger.

I'm trying to figure out how the Indiana and Arkansas bills language differ from the RRA that has been the law of the land since 1993.

Can you help?

 

[fredjr82]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

If this has been in place for 25 years then there should be thousands of wedding cake examples by now, shouldn't there?

Can you link where in the 1993 Bill Clinton and Al Gore said that businesses, associations, etc were protected by religious exemption? I'm not seeing businesses covered in the federal law passed in 1993 and want to make sure I'm not missing it.

I'm curious how sexual orientation even gets mentioned unless the gay couple goes cake shopping together? What about two brothers shopping for flowers and cakes for one of the brother's weddings? Does the business automatically get to assume they are gay and refuse service? Does the business ask if they are a same-sex marriage? Does one of the brothers have a lisp and is a metrosexual? How does the business even know these two are brothers and not partners? Do they get to pick and choose who they want to bake cakes for or does the gay couple have to sign a waiver that they are gay? Where does that end? Do people with neck tattoos also get turned away if the religious store owner doesn't like tattoos?

 

[pablow]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

Originally posted by joelbc1:

THE MEDIA reported the news. That is what the media does. THE MEDIA is not the big evil here rocket......You may not like the message but you don't kill the messenger.

I'm trying to figure out how the Indiana and Arkansas bills language differ from the RRA that has been the law of the land since 1993.

Can you help?




I don't see any difference between the key provisions of the
Federal and Indiana laws. Here they are, you can read them:


[You correct that Indiana's law defines person broadly to
cover busuness entities, however, didn't the Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby give
"person" the same broad definition that is contained in the Indiana
law? If true, than what's the difference



Federal Law


42 U.S. Code § 2000bb-1 - Free exercise of religion protected

(a) In general

Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule
of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it 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.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a

claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a
government.
Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.


Indiana Law
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general

applicability. (b) 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.
Sec. 9. 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.

This post was edited on 4/2 10:36 AM by pablow

 

[mstp1992]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

Originally posted by joelbc1:

THE MEDIA reported the news. That is what the media does. THE MEDIA is not the big evil here rocket......You may not like the message but you don't kill the messenger.

I'm trying to figure out how the Indiana and Arkansas bills language differ from the RRA that has been the law of the land since 1993.

Can you help?

This has been explained ad nauseam.

Yes, they are similar.

No, they are not identical.

Here's a good summary of the differences.

 

[pablow]

Originally posted by fredjr82:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

If this has been in place for 25 years then there should be thousands of wedding cake examples by now, shouldn't there?

Can you link where in the 1993 Bill Clinton and Al Gore said that businesses, associations, etc were protected by religious exemption? I'm not seeing businesses covered in the federal law passed in 1993 and want to make sure I'm not missing it.

I'm curious how sexual orientation even gets mentioned unless the gay couple goes cake shopping together? What about two brothers shopping for flowers and cakes for one of the brother's weddings? Does the business automatically get to assume they are gay and refuse service? Does the business ask if they are a same-sex marriage? Does one of the brothers have a lisp and is a metrosexual? How does the business even know these two are brothers and not partners? Do they get to pick and choose who they want to bake cakes for or does the gay couple have to sign a waiver that they are gay? Where does that end? Do people with neck tattoos also get turned away if the religious store owner doesn't like tattoos?

"Person" is a business as contrued in Hobby Lobby.

The rest of your post isn't very serious.

 

[22*43*51]

Originally posted by fredjr82:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

If this has been in place for 25 years then there should be thousands of wedding cake examples by now, shouldn't there?

Can you link where in the 1993 Bill Clinton and Al Gore said that I'm not seeing businesses covered in the federal law passed in 1993 and want to make sure I'm not missing it.

I'm curious how sexual orientation even gets mentioned unless the gay couple goes cake shopping together? What about two brothers shopping for flowers and cakes for one of the brother's weddings? Does the business automatically get to assume they are gay and refuse service? Does the business ask if they are a same-sex marriage? Does one of the brothers have a lisp and is a metrosexual? How does the business even know these two are brothers and not partners? Do they get to pick and choose who they want to bake cakes for or does the gay couple have to sign a waiver that they are gay? Where does that end? Do people with neck tattoos also get turned away if the religious store owner doesn't like tattoos?

Ok. I did my research. This is what the 1993 Bill says.



SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.


(a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).

(b) EXCEPTION- Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it 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.




Of course it doesn't get to the level of specific detail that you are asking, but you have to ask if cake baking is a compelling government interest.

Now your turn to research. What is the specific language of the Indiana and Arkansas bills that grants that. "businesses, associations, etc were protected by religious exemption?"

 

[fredjr82]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

Originally posted by fredjr82:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

If this has been in place for 25 years then there should be thousands of wedding cake examples by now, shouldn't there?

Can you link where in the 1993 Bill Clinton and Al Gore said that I'm not seeing businesses covered in the federal law passed in 1993 and want to make sure I'm not missing it.

I'm curious how sexual orientation even gets mentioned unless the gay couple goes cake shopping together? What about two brothers shopping for flowers and cakes for one of the brother's weddings? Does the business automatically get to assume they are gay and refuse service? Does the business ask if they are a same-sex marriage? Does one of the brothers have a lisp and is a metrosexual? How does the business even know these two are brothers and not partners? Do they get to pick and choose who they want to bake cakes for or does the gay couple have to sign a waiver that they are gay? Where does that end? Do people with neck tattoos also get turned away if the religious store owner doesn't like tattoos?

Ok. I did my research. This is what the 1993 Bill says.



SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.


(a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).

(b) EXCEPTION- Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it 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.




Of course it doesn't get to the level of specific detail that you are asking, but you have to ask if cake baking is a compelling government interest.

Now your turn to research. What is the specific language of the Indiana and Arkansas bills that grants that. "businesses, associations, etc were protected by religious exemption?"

From the article that MTSP linked


The Federal RFRA states that "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. ..."


The Indiana law also states, "A governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."


That is, the federal law states, except when it "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."


Indiana also states the exception as "(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."


But that's where the similarities end.


The federal law does not go so far as to define a "person." Indiana's law does. And a "person," by its standard, is not what you might think.


Section 7 of the Indiana code includes people, churches and corporations in that definition


The Indiana law goes further. In Section 9, it states that "a person," in this case meaning an individual, church, limited liability company, etc., "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."


So, in other words, while the federal law states that a person can sue the government for a grievance, Indiana makes a point of stating that it doesn't matter if government is involved.


Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College, notes in National Review that while some read the federal provision as pertaining only to government, it has actually split federal courts. "Private parties," he points out, "had brought suits against corporations."


For example: "[T]he D.C. Circuit held that the Catholic University of America could raise RFRA as a defense against a sex-discrimination claim brought by a nun and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alike."


That said, the Indiana law explicitly wipes away any ambiguity.[/B]

I also found this in the article that trumps any of the "other states have this law too" argument.

Nineteen states, in addition to Indiana, have since enacted their own RFRAs, but as The Atlantic notes, just South Carolina and Texas have similar variations to Indiana's and neither seems to go quite as far.[/B]

 

[mstp1992]

The key is whether or not LGBT people should be considered a "protected class". If they are "protected" then discrimination against them for who they are would be illegal. If they are not considered "protected" then the Indiana law would allow for discrimination against them. There are scenarios in which the burden would be greater on the LGBT individual if they were refused service than for the one doing the refusing (e.g., medical service, schooling, etc.); and there are cases in which there is little burden on the LGBT person (e.g., cake decorating, copy center services, etc.).


The biggest problem I have with this issue is that I just don't believe someone should be discriminated against because of his or her biological makeup. The scientific evidence is overwhelming that there are biological underpinnings for homo- and bisexuality.

Now, contrast this with religious beliefs which are unequivocally 100% made by CHOICE. There is no biological substrate for Christianity, Muslim, Judaism, etc. yet religious beliefs are "protected."

 

[jscott78]

And business too. Wal Mart hates you guys for this nutbirdery. WalMart! Good political moves to piss off the cash cow. Hell, the Koch bros probably think you religious extremists are dbs. Really smart.

 

[downtown hawk redux]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

Originally posted by joelbc1:

THE MEDIA reported the news. That is what the media does. THE MEDIA is not the big evil here rocket......You may not like the message but you don't kill the messenger.

I'm trying to figure out how the Indiana and Arkansas bills language differ from the RRA that has been the law of the land since 1993.

Can you help?

JFC, do some f*cking reading. Is that too hard for you? Here let me help you out since your ideology appears to leave you in a sloth-like state watching FOX News.


The Indiana law differs substantially from the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by President Clinton in 1993, and all other state RFRAs.


There are several important differences in the Indiana bill but the most striking is Section 9. Under that section, a "person" (which under the law includes not only an individual but also any organization, partnership, LLC, corporation, company, firm, church, religious society, or other entity) whose "exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened" can use the law as "a claim or defense… regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding."


Every other Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to disputes between a person or entity and a government. Indiana's is the only law that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens.* This means it could be used as a cudgel by corporations to justify discrimination against individuals that might otherwise be protected under law. Indiana trial lawyer Matt Anderson, discussing this difference, writes that the Indiana law is "more broadly written than its federal and state predecessors" and opens up "the path of least resistance among its species to have a court adjudicate it in a manner that could ultimately be used to discriminate…"

Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom wrote in February that the Indiana law does not "mirror the language of the federal RFRA" and "will… create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state's ability to enforce other compelling interests. This confusion and conflict will increasingly take the form of private actors, such as employers, landlords, small business owners, or corporations, taking the law into their own hands and acting in ways that violate generally applicable laws on the grounds that they have a religious justification for doing so. Members of the public will then be asked to bear the cost of their employer's, their landlord's, their local shopkeeper's, or a police officer's private religious beliefs."

So no, it's not a small, insignificant difference. I laugh at social conservatives and their hypocrisy. Hate the win, but don't hate the sinner. Yeah, just don't serve him. In a perfect world, I would prefer to have business who don't just go out of business and those who are gay (not the only group who could be discriminated against legally BTW) would go elsewhere, but then I heard that same argument back in 1965.

 

[rocketclone]

Originally posted by joelbc1:

Originally posted by rocketclone:


This fiasco over the past week is totally out of control and totally driven by the press. Seems like everyone is just worried whether or not a gay couple can get cupcakes at their wedding.


The media? Really? The first I heard of this was because THE MEDIA reported that the folks from "Angie's List" were delaying a planned business expansion due to the tone of this recently passed legislation. Several other corporations/businesses joined by expressing their concern.
THE MEDIA reported the news. That is what the media does. THE MEDIA is not the big evil here rocket......You may not like the message but you don't kill the messenger.
The State of Indiana was really ignorant here. Where they ran afoul of corporate America is that they (Indiana) felt they needed a "religious freedom act" and didn't feel the need to enact legislation to protect ALL of God's children in Indiana, regardless of their life styles or life choices.
I use religion to guide ME personally........I don't judge others by how they conform (or not) with my interpretation of religion.
This story, respectfully, was NOT a media driven event. It was an event driven by ignorance and politics.

Yes the media, you do one report and you move on. They have devoted three times the coverage to this thing as they did the Hillary's email scandal.

Again, this is all over baking a stupid cake, or a photographer, that is it. Don't give me the all God's children thing.

And I don't give a flying you know what about how you handle your religion and that is your choice to handle it how you want and other people handle it different ways. The rules work both ways. Don't shove yours down my throat.

You want to make a difference in the world then go beat on the companies that do business where Sharia Law has been enacted and where they treat women and gays as criminals. Then you can make a difference and feel better about yourself.

How about Human Trafficking?? Why don't you work on that one??

Or how about an agreement with Iran that keeps them from getting Nukes??

No we spend our time and human capital on someone not getting a cake baked or getting a photographer. Go find a different one then, pretty simple.

But no, they target a specific group who doesn't agree with their lifestyle and force it down their throats and when they don't comply we bombard them with news reports and threats and insults on social media until they are beaten into submission.

And some of these companied better be careful because when the dust settles it could come back and bite them.

There are a lot bigger fish to fry then who bakes a cake for a wedding.

 

[mstp1992]

Lifestyle vs. biology.


I can give you a whole host of peer-reviewed scientific articles supporting a biological contribution to sexual orientation.

I can find no such articles for the biological basis of specific religious beliefs.


Religious beliefs are considered protected, yet they are 100% a lifestyle choice.

 

[downtown hawk redux]

And here's more for you from the bastion of liberal thought, Antonin Scalia:


In 1990, Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, concluding that the First Amendment "does not require" the government to grant "religious exemptions" from generally applicable laws or civic obligations. The case was brought by two men in Oregon who sued the state for denying them unemployment benefits after they were fired from their jobs for ingesting peyote, which they said they did because of their Native American religious beliefs.


"[T]he right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability," Scalia wrote in the 6-3 majority decision, going on to aggressively argue that such exemptions could be a slippery slope to lawlessness and that "[a]ny society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy."

As the Supreme Court majority wrote in 1990, "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law … On the contrary, the record of more than a century of free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition."


Laws … cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may [interfere] with practices … Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious beliefs superior to the law of the land." Though government cannot outlaw beliefs, it can limit practices in some cases. Citizens may not ignore those laws because religious doctrine is not above the law of the land.

The truth is that the whiny faction in this is Christian conservatives who think the government owes them some sort of exemption from following laws because they don't approve of the gay lifestyle or contraception, or Muslims. It doesn't and for the very reasons that Scalia wrote. Serving a gay person a pizza or baking a cake is not akin to violating any tenet of their religion. In fact, That sad thing is that the real Jesus would have welcomed them. Hate the sin love the sinner is the biggest lie out there and you can see that in laws like this.

Let's not kid ourselves here. Look at who stood next to Pence (who has a history of this crap) when he signed it. Look it up. Micah Clark, an anti-gay activist who believes homosexuality a treatable disorder. Curt Smith who equates gay with bestiality (he helped write it no less) and two other anti-gay activists, one who wants to prosecute preachers who marry same sex couples. So let's stop saying it's a benign version of the same law as the one they passed in 1993. Anyone with brains who can read knows that's a lie.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Originally posted by BlazinHawk:
No. The gheys purposely targeting religious businesses and then suing and crying to the press.


Posted from Rivals Mobile

Stupid gheys and their pesky constitutional rights, and then using their First Amendment rights to speak with the press, and Article III courts in an attempt to enforce such rights ....







This post was edited on 4/2 12:09 PM by St. Louis Hawk

 

[rocketclone]

Originally posted by mstp1992:
Lifestyle vs. biology.


I can give you a whole host of peer-reviewed scientific articles supporting a biological contribution to sexual orientation.

I can find no such articles for the biological basis of specific religious beliefs.


Religious beliefs are considered protected, yet they are 100% a lifestyle choice.

Don't care, go buy your cake and get your photos from someone else then. There are more important issues. We have 2 women just arrested for wanting to blow up people in NY.

How ow about we focus on that.

Don't intentionally target businesses just to make a point.

 

[mstp1992]

Originally posted by rocketclone:

Originally posted by mstp1992:
Lifestyle vs. biology.


I can give you a whole host of peer-reviewed scientific articles supporting a biological contribution to sexual orientation.

I can find no such articles for the biological basis of specific religious beliefs.


Religious beliefs are considered protected, yet they are 100% a lifestyle choice.

Don't care, go buy your cake and get your photos from someone else then. There are more important issues. We have 2 women just arrested for wanting to blow up people in NY.

How ow about we focus on that.

Don't intentionally target businesses just to make a point.

Yes, the women with the bomb-making materials are a far greater threat. I think we can all agree on this. Totally separate topic though.

You're missing a significant point in the original topic. Changes in society happen because people stand up for rights in which they believe. If enough people believe that it is not right for a business to discriminate against a certain group of people then how do they get them to change their practices? By specifically targeting those businesses or making the legislatures make it illegal to do so.

I don't necessarily like the comparison many make to the plight of blacks prior to the Civil Rights act, but there are some similarities. In addition to those who may be targeted for discrimination, there are others who believe they should NOT be discriminated against and are willing to make their feelings known. If a business is willing to discriminate, then they should also be made to endure any consequences.

Now, are you willing to say that religious rights also should NOT be protected?

 

[22*43*51]

Originally posted by fredjr82:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

Originally posted by fredjr82:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

If this has been in place for 25 years then there should be thousands of wedding cake examples by now, shouldn't there?

Can you link where in the 1993 Bill Clinton and Al Gore said that I'm not seeing businesses covered in the federal law passed in 1993 and want to make sure I'm not missing it.

I'm curious how sexual orientation even gets mentioned unless the gay couple goes cake shopping together? What about two brothers shopping for flowers and cakes for one of the brother's weddings? Does the business automatically get to assume they are gay and refuse service? Does the business ask if they are a same-sex marriage? Does one of the brothers have a lisp and is a metrosexual? How does the business even know these two are brothers and not partners? Do they get to pick and choose who they want to bake cakes for or does the gay couple have to sign a waiver that they are gay? Where does that end? Do people with neck tattoos also get turned away if the religious store owner doesn't like tattoos?

Ok. I did my research. This is what the 1993 Bill says.





SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.




(a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).



(b) EXCEPTION- Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it 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.




Of course it doesn't get to the level of specific detail that you are asking, but you have to ask if cake baking is a compelling government interest.

Now your turn to research. What is the specific language of the Indiana and Arkansas bills that grants that. "businesses, associations, etc were protected by religious exemption?"

From the article that MTSP linked

I've' seen this article and have heard this opinion, but I haven't seen that language in the Bill that calls this out.

Could one of you please paste/link?









This post was edited on 4/2 12:58 PM by 22*43*51

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by rocketclone:

Don't care, go buy your cake and get your photos from someone else then. There are more important issues. We have 2 women just arrested for wanting to blow up people in NY.

How ow about we focus on that.

Don't intentionally target businesses just to make a point.

Why are you upset about the bomb ladies? They're just expressing their religious freedom. I bet they agree with you 100% on this law.

 

[rocketclone]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by rocketclone:


Don't care, go buy your cake and get your photos from someone else then. There are more important issues. We have 2 women just arrested for wanting to blow up people in NY.

How ow about we focus on that.

Don't intentionally target businesses just to make a point.

Why are you upset about the bomb ladies? They're just expressing their religious freedom. I bet they agree with you 100% on this law.

Not upset about the bomb ladies, but I'll bet your disappointed. Kill some Christians instead of just bleeding their businesses dry.

Comparing someone who wants to use a bomb or their power to destroy businesses and people is your way of doing things not mine.

A cake and a bomb are soooo comparable.............

 

[txhawk I]

Manufactured crisis, nothing more.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by rocketclone:

Not upset about the bomb ladies, but I'll bet your disappointed. Kill some Christians instead of just bleeding their businesses dry.

Comparing someone who wants to use a bomb or their power to destroy businesses and people is your way of doing things not mine.

A cake and a bomb are soooo comparable.............

You reap what you sow, I think that's biblical. This is the sort of thing you get when society prioritizes religious feelings over all other values.

 

[mstp1992]

Originally posted by txhawk I:
Manufactured crisis, nothing more.

Manufactured by the Indiana legislature. Had they put in language specifically protecting the LGBT community none of this would be an issue.

Frankly, I'm surprised Pence and the Indiana legislature didn't think of this from the get-go. They really didn't think ahead on this issue.

 

[ClarindaA's]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by rocketclone:



Not upset about the bomb ladies, but I'll bet your disappointed. Kill some Christians instead of just bleeding their businesses dry.



Comparing someone who wants to use a bomb or their power to destroy businesses and people is your way of doing things not mine.



A cake and a bomb are soooo comparable.............

You reap what you sow, I think that's biblical. This is the sort of thing you get when society prioritizes religious feelings over all other values.

your of base natural, and I get it. But in the case of gay weddings, it's hard for me to support a law that would coerce bakers, caterers, photographers, into participating directly in something against what they believe. They aren't causing harm.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by mstp1992:

Originally posted by txhawk I:
Manufactured crisis, nothing more.

Manufactured by the Indiana legislature. Had they put in language specifically protecting the LGBT community none of this would be an issue.

Frankly, I'm surprised Pence and the Indiana legislature didn't think of this from the get-go. They really didn't think ahead on this issue.

They actually did think of it beforehand. An amendment was introduced that would have done as you say, but it was defeated something like 40-10. They want the law to say what it does.

 

[mstp1992]

Originally posted by ClarindaA's:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by rocketclone:



Not upset about the bomb ladies, but I'll bet your disappointed. Kill some Christians instead of just bleeding their businesses dry.



Comparing someone who wants to use a bomb or their power to destroy businesses and people is your way of doing things not mine.



A cake and a bomb are soooo comparable.............

You reap what you sow, I think that's biblical. This is the sort of thing you get when society prioritizes religious feelings over all other values.

your of base natural, and I get it. But in the case of gay weddings, it's hard for me to support a law that would coerce bakers, caterers, photographers, into participating directly in something against what they believe. They aren't causing harm.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Then religious beliefs should not be protected either. Religious beliefs are entirely a person's choice. Sexual orientation at least has a biological basis.

 

[ClarindaA's]

Originally posted by mstp1992:

Originally posted by ClarindaA's:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by rocketclone:







Not upset about the bomb ladies, but I'll bet your disappointed. Kill some Christians instead of just bleeding their businesses dry.







Comparing someone who wants to use a bomb or their power to destroy businesses and people is your way of doing things not mine.







A cake and a bomb are soooo comparable.............

You reap what you sow, I think that's biblical. This is the sort of thing you get when society prioritizes religious feelings over all other values.

your of base natural, and I get it. But in the case of gay weddings, it's hard for me to support a law that would coerce bakers, caterers, photographers, into participating directly in something against what they believe. They aren't causing harm.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Then religious beliefs should not be protected either. Religious beliefs are entirely a person's choice. Sexual orientation at least has a biological basis.

what protections are you talking about? May be a great easy to keep Muslims out..I'm listening
Posted from Rivals Mobile