Michigan House passes bill legalizing religious discrimination
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:09:50 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Michigan House passes bill legalizing religious discrimination
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Michigan House passes bill legalizing religious discrimination  (Read 4893 times)
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: December 09, 2014, 03:28:30 PM »

But guys, the gays can just call a different ambulance if the one they get is too homophobic. It's the magic of the free market!
Hospitals don't allow ambulance workers to decide things like that based on their personal beliefs. Would this bill prevent hospitals from firing workers who refused to serve gays? If so, the bill itself is a restriction on the free market.

No.  This bill doesn't say anything about allowing people to refuse to treat gays.  It says a person cannot be forced by the government to do something against their beliefs unless 1) it is for a compelling state interest and 2) it is the least restrictive method for carrying that out.  This bill makes Michigan law the same on these issues as federal law. It's scary stuff to someone who doesn't want religious freedom to stand in the way of state governments forcing people to do stuff.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: December 09, 2014, 09:01:15 PM »

HuhHuhHuh

As you indicated in your original post, specific performance is just a type of remedy, not a cause of action. Its availability or unavailability in specific types of lawsuits has nothing to do with this Michigan bill. The bill would  prevent gay couples from bringing discrimination-related suits seeking monetary damages or any other type of relief.

What monetary damages exist, other than someone wishing to impose punitive measures? If someone causes actually monetary damages, it will be related to another contractual/criminal concept, not anti-discrimination.

The only thing this bill does is stop the judiciary from improperly enslaving citizens for political gain or under political duress. Specific-performance made sense during the civil rights movement to eliminate segregation. There is no segregation of homosexuals, and specific performance is not a proper remedy in most instances.

Everyone wins when the legislature restricts the judiciary's powers of specific performance.

The only ones that win when you legally allow discrimination are bigots.
I suppose you also believe that the only ones that win when you legally allow bigoted speech are bigots?
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2014, 10:42:19 AM »

HuhHuhHuh

As you indicated in your original post, specific performance is just a type of remedy, not a cause of action. Its availability or unavailability in specific types of lawsuits has nothing to do with this Michigan bill. The bill would  prevent gay couples from bringing discrimination-related suits seeking monetary damages or any other type of relief.

What monetary damages exist, other than someone wishing to impose punitive measures? If someone causes actually monetary damages, it will be related to another contractual/criminal concept, not anti-discrimination.

The only thing this bill does is stop the judiciary from improperly enslaving citizens for political gain or under political duress. Specific-performance made sense during the civil rights movement to eliminate segregation. There is no segregation of homosexuals, and specific performance is not a proper remedy in most instances.

Everyone wins when the legislature restricts the judiciary's powers of specific performance.

The only ones that win when you legally allow discrimination are bigots.
I suppose you also believe that the only ones that win when you legally allow bigoted speech are bigots?

No, there is a difference between speech and discrimination....
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: December 10, 2014, 10:52:46 AM »

Republicans hate people who are not rich and white or in utero. News at 11.

FTFY
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: December 10, 2014, 01:00:59 PM »

The only ones that win when you legally allow discrimination are bigots.

Do you think a gay fashion designer should be forced to make a dress for the wife of a religious fundamentalist?

When the court forces someone to perform a specific service or to produce a unique non-fungible good, you're merely expanding the problem. Temporary enslavement of private citizens to reverse discrimination is only practical in extreme circumstances, like segregation.

I know Democrats believe in slavery, but you need to slow your roll. There are plenty of non-fundamentalists in business.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: December 10, 2014, 01:09:43 PM »

The only ones that win when you legally allow discrimination are bigots.

Do you think a gay fashion designer should be forced to make a dress for the wife of a religious fundamentalist?

Yes, he should, if his store and services are open to the public. No question.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: December 10, 2014, 01:11:49 PM »

When the court forces someone to perform a specific service or to produce a unique non-fungible good, you're merely expanding the problem. Temporary enslavement of private citizens to reverse discrimination is only practical in extreme circumstances, like segregation.

Is that so? By your own standard that is special pleading. Either you allow businesses to discriminate or not.

If it's okay to discriminate against gays then why not blacks, Jews, or anyone else for that matter? You can't have it both ways.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: December 10, 2014, 01:44:11 PM »

Is that so? By your own standard that is special pleading. Either you allow businesses to discriminate or not.

If it's okay to discriminate against gays then why not blacks, Jews, or anyone else for that matter? You can't have it both ways.

Actually, you can. The court system and legislators have devised different levels of legal scrutiny because the annotative and connotative meanings of "discrimination" in a legal context have little to do with its colloquial political use. Furthermore, the judiciary has established many limitations for the remedy of specific performance.

Most Americans understand that Christian fundamentalists are being obtuse, regarding their refusal to provide non-fungible goods and services for homosexual patrons, but you're supposed to find a remedy to any damages, not amplify the problem and undermine the US Constitution.

A world in which patrons can force businesses to perform is not a free world.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: December 10, 2014, 01:50:21 PM »

The only ones that win when you legally allow discrimination are bigots.

Do you think a gay fashion designer should be forced to make a dress for the wife of a religious fundamentalist?


A gay wouldn't bother to be a hateful little dweeb like fundamentalists are.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: December 10, 2014, 01:55:57 PM »

Actually, you can. The court system and legislators have devised different levels of legal scrutiny because the annotative and connotative meanings of "discrimination" in a legal context have little to do with its colloquial political use. Furthermore, the judiciary has established many limitations for the remedy of specific performance.

Most Americans understand that Christian fundamentalists are being obtuse, regarding their refusal to provide non-fungible goods and services for homosexual patrons, but you're supposed to find a remedy to any damages, not amplify the problem and undermine the US Constitution.

A world in which patrons can force businesses to perform is not a free world.

Again, you are making a special exception to this principle in regards to businesses refusing to serve blacks, ect.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: December 10, 2014, 02:00:12 PM »

The only ones that win when you legally allow discrimination are bigots.

Do you think a gay fashion designer should be forced to make a dress for the wife of a religious fundamentalist?


A gay wouldn't bother to be a hateful little dweeb like fundamentalists are.

Should a t-shirt printer - whether gay or not - be forced to print t-shirts saying gay people are going to hell, if they have a paying customer?
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: December 10, 2014, 04:59:51 PM »

Again, you are making a special exception to this principle in regards to businesses refusing to serve blacks, ect.

It's the law. There are exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions.

What's your point? If I'm willing to make an exception for one demographic, I should apply no scrutiny to a claim made by another group? African Americans were struggling against segregation, which was a lingering cultural malady from a century of slavery in the US. The history of racial struggles in the US is not comparable to politically-correct political debates in the zeitgeist of modern times.

As I've explained before, a lion's share of the cultural friction between gay and straight is caused by federal regulations that treat married people as ubermensch and single people as cannon-fodder. You can fix that problem without forcibly enslaving anyone.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: December 10, 2014, 08:41:54 PM »

The only ones that win when you legally allow discrimination are bigots.

Do you think a gay fashion designer should be forced to make a dress for the wife of a religious fundamentalist?


A gay wouldn't bother to be a hateful little dweeb like fundamentalists are.

Should a t-shirt printer - whether gay or not - be forced to print t-shirts saying gay people are going to hell, if they have a paying customer?

Are we getting into who makes the Westboro Bapist merch? 

I could think of any printing company having issue with printing openly hateful things about anybody.  What you are talking about is in line with the white shop owners in the South in the Civil Rights era refusing service to the blacks.  To what autonomy do we give the owner?  Where does the ownership give way to the social contract of running a business?  I think at the end of the day, what you must ask is if this is actually a problem, or could it really be a problem?  Is forcing blacks into certain food establishments a problem?  Is letting an EMT refuse treatment to an injured gay problematic?  Is lack of ability for bigots to get custom garb a problem? 

Also, does the dress being made by the gay for the religious have anything to do with the cultural divide between the two, whereas the gay being forced to make a "Gays are going to Hell" t-shirt... well... it's quite upfront, no? 

It's certainly not black and white, and it probably has to come down to this: Do we have reason to believe the refusal of service is purely to do with discrimination by the owner?  In that sense, can't we say that the t-shirt printer would have a vesting interest beyond that individual customer in NOT producing an "I hate Gays" shirt? 
Logged
LeBron
LeBron FitzGerald
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,906
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: December 10, 2014, 11:26:47 PM »

There isn't much to say on this because we already knew the Republican Party hates gay people, and they can't try to hide it. It's bad enough that states like MI and OH don't have laws protecting people from being fired based off of sexual orientation, but that isn't good enough for them. Republicans simply want any group they know who votes against them to suffer which includes the LGBT community in this case who could be denied entry to a grocery store or a hospital based on bigoted beliefs.

Everyone's mentioning the EMT, but what about a police officer? Would he/she just allow a person they suspect is gay to get beaten down outside a bar because the policeman doesn't approve of his lifestyle?

On a more personal note, if this passes in Ohio which is very possible after our state voted for more homophobia this year, local businesses like Chick Fil-A or Regal Cinemas could deny me or a friend from entering because of who I am. Heck, our pro-gay rights equality group at school is about to have T-Shirts printed and there are a few straight allies in the group. If they go to those places, they could be denied as well for the simple fact that the owner's policy bars anyone who they think are gay.

It's 21st century discrimination at it's worst. It's outright sickening, but it's the truth.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: December 10, 2014, 11:52:51 PM »

The only ones that win when you legally allow discrimination are bigots.

Do you think a gay fashion designer should be forced to make a dress for the wife of a religious fundamentalist?


A gay wouldn't bother to be a hateful little dweeb like fundamentalists are.

Your naivete is charming.  The world would indeed be a much nicer place if the victims of hate never returned it when given the chance, but alas that simply is not true.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: December 11, 2014, 12:28:05 AM »

The only ones that win when you legally allow discrimination are bigots.

Do you think a gay fashion designer should be forced to make a dress for the wife of a religious fundamentalist?


A gay wouldn't bother to be a hateful little dweeb like fundamentalists are.

Should a t-shirt printer - whether gay or not - be forced to print t-shirts saying gay people are going to hell, if they have a paying customer?

Are we getting into who makes the Westboro Bapist merch? 

I could think of any printing company having issue with printing openly hateful things about anybody.  What you are talking about is in line with the white shop owners in the South in the Civil Rights era refusing service to the blacks.  To what autonomy do we give the owner?  Where does the ownership give way to the social contract of running a business?  I think at the end of the day, what you must ask is if this is actually a problem, or could it really be a problem?  Is forcing blacks into certain food establishments a problem?  Is letting an EMT refuse treatment to an injured gay problematic?  Is lack of ability for bigots to get custom garb a problem? 

Also, does the dress being made by the gay for the religious have anything to do with the cultural divide between the two, whereas the gay being forced to make a "Gays are going to Hell" t-shirt... well... it's quite upfront, no? 

It's certainly not black and white, and it probably has to come down to this: Do we have reason to believe the refusal of service is purely to do with discrimination by the owner?  In that sense, can't we say that the t-shirt printer would have a vesting interest beyond that individual customer in NOT producing an "I hate Gays" shirt? 

Is whether or not their is a vested financial reason for a practice really a good basis for deciding whether it should be legal?  After all discrimination can be based out of vested financial interest rather than any animus toward any group on the part of the business.   Discrimination is one thing, but making a person rent out their property to a gay wedding, or photograph it, if it goes against their beliefs, when there are others who are quite willing to provide these services - isn't that also quite upfront?  The fundamental question here is whether a person should have the ability to offer their services in a way consistent with their beliefs.  It takes a very narrow view of the nature of work as divorced from the rest of one's existence to say that individual conscience should not be allowed to play a crucial role in its operation.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: December 11, 2014, 12:44:41 AM »

The only ones that win when you legally allow discrimination are bigots.

Do you think a gay fashion designer should be forced to make a dress for the wife of a religious fundamentalist?


A gay wouldn't bother to be a hateful little dweeb like fundamentalists are.

Should a t-shirt printer - whether gay or not - be forced to print t-shirts saying gay people are going to hell, if they have a paying customer?

Are we getting into who makes the Westboro Bapist merch? 

I could think of any printing company having issue with printing openly hateful things about anybody.  What you are talking about is in line with the white shop owners in the South in the Civil Rights era refusing service to the blacks.  To what autonomy do we give the owner?  Where does the ownership give way to the social contract of running a business?  I think at the end of the day, what you must ask is if this is actually a problem, or could it really be a problem?  Is forcing blacks into certain food establishments a problem?  Is letting an EMT refuse treatment to an injured gay problematic?  Is lack of ability for bigots to get custom garb a problem? 

Also, does the dress being made by the gay for the religious have anything to do with the cultural divide between the two, whereas the gay being forced to make a "Gays are going to Hell" t-shirt... well... it's quite upfront, no? 

It's certainly not black and white, and it probably has to come down to this: Do we have reason to believe the refusal of service is purely to do with discrimination by the owner?  In that sense, can't we say that the t-shirt printer would have a vesting interest beyond that individual customer in NOT producing an "I hate Gays" shirt? 

Is whether or not their is a vested financial reason for a practice really a good basis for deciding whether it should be legal?  After all discrimination can be based out of vested financial interest rather than any animus toward any group on the part of the business.   Discrimination is one thing, but making a person rent out their property to a gay wedding, or photograph it, if it goes against their beliefs, when there are others who are quite willing to provide these services - isn't that also quite upfront?  The fundamental question here is whether a person should have the ability to offer their services in a way consistent with their beliefs.  It takes a very narrow view of the nature of work as divorced from the rest of one's existence to say that individual conscience should not be allowed to play a crucial role in its operation.

Nah, I don't think how we look at discrimination is still that subjective.  As evidenced by these types of disclaimers on employment applications...



Our societal boundaries are more defined than you think, at it has to do with years of court decisions and thousands of cases.
Logged
Oak Hills
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: December 11, 2014, 01:30:00 PM »

There isn't much to say on this because we already knew the Republican Party hates gay people, and they can't try to hide it. It's bad enough that states like MI and OH don't have laws protecting people from being fired based off of sexual orientation, but that isn't good enough for them. Republicans simply want any group they know who votes against them to suffer which includes the LGBT community in this case who could be denied entry to a grocery store or a hospital based on bigoted beliefs.

Everyone's mentioning the EMT, but what about a police officer? Would he/she just allow a person they suspect is gay to get beaten down outside a bar because the policeman doesn't approve of his lifestyle?

On a more personal note, if this passes in Ohio which is very possible after our state voted for more homophobia this year, local businesses like Chick Fil-A or Regal Cinemas could deny me or a friend from entering because of who I am. Heck, our pro-gay rights equality group at school is about to have T-Shirts printed and there are a few straight allies in the group. If they go to those places, they could be denied as well for the simple fact that the owner's policy bars anyone who they think are gay.

It's 21st century discrimination at it's worst. It's outright sickening, but it's the truth.

Yet you went on and on for four paragraphs, substantially longer than the average post on this forum?  Wink
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 12 queries.