Pence signed it: Add Indiana to the list of states with "religious freedom" laws
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:52:22 PM
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)
  Pence signed it: Add Indiana to the list of states with "religious freedom" laws
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9
Author Topic: Pence signed it: Add Indiana to the list of states with "religious freedom" laws  (Read 20951 times)
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: March 28, 2015, 10:42:33 AM »

The text of this law is so bare that really the news story should be "Indiana legalizes all drugs, ritualistic human sacrifice, and Sharia Law."
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: March 28, 2015, 10:56:38 AM »

An interesting radio interview here with a business owner:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/03/28/listen-indiana-restaurant-owner-pledges-to-refuse-service-to-gays/

He's proud of the law and lying to gay people so they leave his restaurant but not proud enough to openly say which restaurant it is. That should be part of these laws; they need to advertise who they won't serve, if not serving certain people is that important to them.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: March 28, 2015, 11:53:45 AM »

An interesting radio interview here with a business owner:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/03/28/listen-indiana-restaurant-owner-pledges-to-refuse-service-to-gays/

He's proud of the law and lying to gay people so they leave his restaurant but not proud enough to openly say which restaurant it is. That should be part of these laws; they need to advertise who they won't serve, if not serving certain people is that important to them.

But, but, but.... this is all about MUH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  This is in no way, shape, or form homophobia.  

None of this:

Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: March 28, 2015, 01:15:39 PM »

If you mean that the level of discrimination would be so minor as to make such laws on private businesses unnecessary, then maybe.  The homogenization of American society along with the franchizification of American commerce mean that the public accommodation laws aren't strongly needed,  Shame and boycotts can probably deal with that area of commerce.  Housing and employment are areas where a stronger case can be made, certainly strong enough that I see no reason to repeal such laws, and a partial repeal for just public accommodations would be more trouble than it would be worth.

I think that's an incredibly naive way of thinking. Yes, there are many parts of the country where actively discriminating against gay people in the name of "religious freedom" would drive a company out of business. But there are plenty of regions where that's not the case. A town in rural Texas could easily have a supermarket, doctor's office, drug store and restaurants that proudly flaunt their "religious freedom," and because they live in a town that may oppose gay marriage by 80% or more, face little consequence. Quite the opposite -- there are many scenarios where a conservative Christian community would come together to protect such a business from harm.

Don't think this will happen? There are a stunning number of towns and communities that are actively working to skirt federal discrimination laws to keep black people out. This is not about protecting people's feelings. This is about protecting people from real financial harm in the name of a perversely twisted religious freedom to discriminate.

What does religious objection to gay marriage have to do with a drug store or a supermarket?

It shouldn't have anything to do with gay marriage, but some pharmacists in IL won a lawsuit and appeal (2012) against the state when a rule was passed requiring them to dispense morning-after pills against their religious views on abortion. One of the laws cited in the opinion (but not the most significant) was a Religious Freedom Act that is virtually identical to the new law in IN.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: March 28, 2015, 02:17:49 PM »

"Religious freedom" means the freedom to practice your religion, things like building a church, attending religious services, observing certain holy days and such. 

"Religious freedom" does not mean this freestanding right to divest yourself of any contact with people you dislike.  I would hope we all agree for example: A religious person could not create a taxi service or an airline that banned Jews or Catholics.

It certainly would be against current law.  It certainly would be economically stupid to limit one's market, even without taking into consideration the boycott of such a business by those who would object to such discrimination despite not being personally affected.  However, the prevention of stupidity by itself is insufficient to pass a law banning a practice however much even a majority finds objectionable.

Insufficient by what metric?  You seem to think discrimination isn't a big deal.  You're also someone who is not discriminated against in any way.  

I think part of the law should function to create social limits, what is and is not acceptable behavior.  There's a basic right to be treated like a normal member of society, regardless of your race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.  That's a norm we ought to enforce, even as we allow people to make up their own mind and conscience.  

Yes, exactly, well said. However, there is a part of the Venn Diagram of policy options as it where here, where a law might be Constitutional, or indeed mandated by the Constitution under the freedom to exercise religion clause, that legalizes behavior that would shock the conscience of most of us here. It is important to bear that distinction in mind I think.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: March 28, 2015, 02:59:18 PM »
« Edited: March 28, 2015, 03:01:13 PM by Former Moderate »

If you mean that the level of discrimination would be so minor as to make such laws on private businesses unnecessary, then maybe.  The homogenization of American society along with the franchizification of American commerce mean that the public accommodation laws aren't strongly needed,  Shame and boycotts can probably deal with that area of commerce.  Housing and employment are areas where a stronger case can be made, certainly strong enough that I see no reason to repeal such laws, and a partial repeal for just public accommodations would be more trouble than it would be worth.

I think that's an incredibly naive way of thinking. Yes, there are many parts of the country where actively discriminating against gay people in the name of "religious freedom" would drive a company out of business. But there are plenty of regions where that's not the case. A town in rural Texas could easily have a supermarket, doctor's office, drug store and restaurants that proudly flaunt their "religious freedom," and because they live in a town that may oppose gay marriage by 80% or more, face little consequence. Quite the opposite -- there are many scenarios where a conservative Christian community would come together to protect such a business from harm.

Don't think this will happen? There are a stunning number of towns and communities that are actively working to skirt federal discrimination laws to keep black people out. This is not about protecting people's feelings. This is about protecting people from real financial harm in the name of a perversely twisted religious freedom to discriminate.

What does religious objection to gay marriage have to do with a drug store or a supermarket?

A devout Christian could want to deny filling a prescription for HIV preventative therapy under the name of religious freedom as it encourages gay sex, for example. And it was a conservative hand-wringer who worried that a supermarket cake baker could be required to provide a cake for a gay wedding (lol) or -- oh god can you imagine how terrible -- for a lesbian couple's child's birthday.
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 #106 on: March 28, 2015, 04:02:16 PM »

An interesting radio interview here with a business owner:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/03/28/listen-indiana-restaurant-owner-pledges-to-refuse-service-to-gays/

He's proud of the law and lying to gay people so they leave his restaurant but not proud enough to openly say which restaurant it is. That should be part of these laws; they need to advertise who they won't serve, if not serving certain people is that important to them.

Now that's a requirement I'd have no qualms supporting.  Sunshine is generally a good disinfectant and it always should be the first option tried as it is the least onerous.
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 #107 on: March 28, 2015, 04:12:53 PM »

Ernest, to be clear, when Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated for anti-discrimination laws, you apply the same logic to him? He should have known better than to have the government force public accommodations to take down their whites only signs, because that was equivalent to discrimination itself?
The difference between his situation and forcing florists to sell flowers for religious ceremonies they disagree with should be fairly obvious, but apparently isn't to you.

I've already covered my views relative to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on this forum, and I referred to them in part in this thread, tho not in full.  In 1964, discrimination was certainly severe enough to warrant the CRA.  It may have eased to the point that the public accommodations portion of the law (Title II) is no longer needed, but a pruning of the CRA isn't desirable.  It would be better to wait until none of it is needed, but unfortunately we're not there yet and may not reach it in my lifetime.  Once discrimination has eased to the point that the CRA is no longer needed it should be repealed, but obviously when that situation is reached is a subjective one.
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 #108 on: March 28, 2015, 04:32:35 PM »

I think part of the law should function to create social limits, what is and is not acceptable behavior.
Which is what led to Jim Crow Laws, Prohibition, Blue Laws, just to mention a few of the things from our own past let alone foreign travesties like the Nuremberg laws.  The creation of social limits is not something that should be a goal of the law, tho it sometimes is a side effect.

Anti-discrimination laws led to the Nuremberg laws.  No...  That didn't happen.
For once you're right.  It didn't happen.  But my point wast that those laws led to anti-discrimination laws, but that both spring from the same source, viewing the law as a primary agent for forcing social change on people.  You see the possibility of some good coming from the changes you seek to force, but so did the people who passed the laws I referred to.  The primary lesson you draw from history is that the wrong social changes were imposed while the primary lesson I draw from history is that it is bad to be imposing social changes via the law.  It sometimes is necessary to deal with even worse problems.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,425
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: March 28, 2015, 05:26:59 PM »

This thread illustrates the difference between actual persecution and having a persecution complex.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: March 28, 2015, 05:29:23 PM »

I think part of the law should function to create social limits, what is and is not acceptable behavior.
Which is what led to Jim Crow Laws, Prohibition, Blue Laws, just to mention a few of the things from our own past let alone foreign travesties like the Nuremberg laws.  The creation of social limits is not something that should be a goal of the law, tho it sometimes is a side effect.

Anti-discrimination laws led to the Nuremberg laws.  No...  That didn't happen.
For once you're right.  It didn't happen.  But my point wast that those laws led to anti-discrimination laws, but that both spring from the same source, viewing the law as a primary agent for forcing social change on people.  You see the possibility of some good coming from the changes you seek to force, but so did the people who passed the laws I referred to.  The primary lesson you draw from history is that the wrong social changes were imposed while the primary lesson I draw from history is that it is bad to be imposing social changes via the law.  It sometimes is necessary to deal with even worse problems.

You always make that assertion.  That we're depleted some precious life-force by having anti-discrimination laws and we've reached some breaking point where one more will lead to some nebulous bad outcome.  

Nobody knows what the hell you're talking about.  And, frankly, as a gay Jew, I'm personally offended that you would compare treating gay people with dignity to the Nuremburg laws.  That's a blatantly stupid thing to say.  And, that's just a basic fallacy.  Changing a law was bad once, so we can never change a law ever.  What about abolishing slavery?  Was that bad?  It certainly upended southern society by changing the law.

Laws are there to make people avoid anti-social behavior, killing each other, arson, stealing, etc.  Now, if you think arson or discrimination is fine, then it doesn't make sense.  But, your argument just pre-supposes that discriminating is not really a problem or truly anti-social behavior.  The non-green avatars simply assume that discrimination is valid behavior that ought to be protected, without telling us why.  We don't assume that discrimination is a trivial matter and all victims of discrimination are just crybabies, you do.  Make that argument, don't just skip to the part where you say, trivial things don't deserve legal redress.  I don't think it's trivial, convince me of that.  
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: March 28, 2015, 05:34:27 PM »

An interesting radio interview here with a business owner:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/03/28/listen-indiana-restaurant-owner-pledges-to-refuse-service-to-gays/

He's proud of the law and lying to gay people so they leave his restaurant but not proud enough to openly say which restaurant it is. That should be part of these laws; they need to advertise who they won't serve, if not serving certain people is that important to them.

This is ridiculous. The point of the law is to prevent people from being forced from being involved in things they consider immoral, not a blanket pass for discrimination. Gay people eating wouldn't count, I think.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: March 28, 2015, 05:38:02 PM »

An interesting radio interview here with a business owner:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/03/28/listen-indiana-restaurant-owner-pledges-to-refuse-service-to-gays/

He's proud of the law and lying to gay people so they leave his restaurant but not proud enough to openly say which restaurant it is. That should be part of these laws; they need to advertise who they won't serve, if not serving certain people is that important to them.

Now that's a requirement I'd have no qualms supporting.  Sunshine is generally a good disinfectant and it always should be the first option tried as it is the least onerous.

So should they go with 'No homosexuals' on their windows or take inspiration from the 'No ns/Wops/Chinks days of old and just go with 'No f****ts'? Might be catchier.

Once discrimination has eased to the point that the CRA is no longer needed it should be repealed, but obviously when that situation is reached is a subjective one.

And your idea that we gays have it alright so nothing needs to be done isn't subjective? You keep repeating your views over and over again despite addressing a forum with a large LBGT contingency who can give you personal experience to the contrary and each time you simply splutter over the issue. I don't think you ever set foot outside your own shadow.
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,684
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: March 28, 2015, 06:22:48 PM »

I could see Pence getting in the GOP 2016 race if Cruz/Santorum/Huckabee falter, but Pence should probably stick to economics, but he'll talk about this law if he runs.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: March 28, 2015, 08:29:32 PM »

By the way, Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are the law in 19 states now, with some of these laws being 2 decades old, in addition to the Federal version of the statute. Can anyone point to a single case where any of these laws have been successfully used to uphold people throwing gay people, or anyone, out of an establishment? 

This isn't really an valid argument that deserves any consideration. You're basically saying that any law is fine as long as it's not put in practice.

No, these laws have been put in practice as they are the basis for numerous court cases against state and federal government, some of them successful.  I'm saying that those who claim that what these laws are really about is allowing discrimination against homosexuals need to put forward some actual legal evidence. 

I guess its just one big coincidence that these laws are coming about during a time when the ssm bans are getting overturned one after the other.....

You think it is a coincidence I take it that these laws are coming about right after the Hobby Lobby case which was decided on this law?   

An interesting radio interview here with a business owner:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/03/28/listen-indiana-restaurant-owner-pledges-to-refuse-service-to-gays/

He's proud of the law and lying to gay people so they leave his restaurant but not proud enough to openly say which restaurant it is. That should be part of these laws; they need to advertise who they won't serve, if not serving certain people is that important to them.

This is ridiculous. The point of the law is to prevent people from being forced from being involved in things they consider immoral, not a blanket pass for discrimination. Gay people eating wouldn't count, I think.

Exactly. But of course that bigot believes the media hype over this law like everyone else.
Logged
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,590
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: March 28, 2015, 08:33:57 PM »
« Edited: March 28, 2015, 08:56:48 PM by Clarko95 »

I support conscience rights for those who act on religious grounds. I support conscience rights for those who act on nonreligious grounds. The fact that the latter do not have a stronger legal tradition behind them is no reason to me that I should not support conscience rights where I can. If you do not support the either anyway, then why is it so particularly vexing to you that these cases might be handled differently?

It is very strange that you say religious freedom laws give greater protection to religious belief than to a person. Who do you think these laws are for the benefit of if not for people?

What weaponizes one group over another is when disagreements over belief are taken to the realm of force, when the state says "you offended this person with your belief, now pay us a huge sum and/or go out of business."  You think that is a recipe for peace and cooperation between different groups of people?

It’s pretty clear you have no idea what you’re talking about, but then again from your posting history it’s pretty clear you have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to anything outside of your narrow, ideological point of view.

You don’t seem to understand the difference between religious thought, religious speech, and religious action (or thought, speech, and action in general)

The protections pertaining to your right to belief is absolute. You believe that homosexuality and abortion are immoral and go against your religion-based beliefs? That’s fine. No problem.

Your rights to speech are almost universally protected, only restricted in the time/manner/place sense and any legally-sanctioned restriction for government interest, among other things. You wanna give a speech about how abortion and homosexuality is wrong? Fine. People may disagree with you, using their freedom of speech, but the government cannot restrict you unless there is a time/manner/place issue, or if you do something like incite violence.

Your rights to action, however, are not universally protected.

Therein lies the problem with this bill.
 
The government is not going to fine someone or shut down their business because someone else complained about their beliefs. That’s a completely fabricated strawman you cooked up that conflates restrictions on action with a restriction on beliefs, and that we want to completely silence everyone who doesn't agree with us, which we don't.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You and the rest of the pro-discrimination crowd keep citing this statistic, and though it’s technically true, you conveniently ignore the context and time periods during which these laws were passed.

So let me explain this to you, since it seems to be so difficult to you and the rest of your kind understand:

In the 1980s, America suddenly became really self-conscious of the more unsavory things that had happened during its history, and began taking measures to right its wrongs. Native Americans, having faced centuries of genocide, abuse, and racism, had a predictably long list of grievances which they took to the courts and the government. Two court cases in 1988 and 1990 overruled Native American religious concerns regarding burial grounds and the use of peyote (regarded as an illegal psychoactive drug) outraged the public, and so in 1993 Congress passed the federal statue almost unanimously and Clinton signed it. The language was vague so it could apply to more than just Native Americans in instances such as Amish buggies or historic buildings that housed churches that wanted to modify the building (this last case is what I’m going to talk about next). I think two states jumped on with laws of their own just to add some padding.

But in 1997, SCOTUS was like “Hey guys, we know your intentions are good and you’re trying to protect people and all, but this federal law regulating states in addition to the federal government is technically unconstitutional per the 14th Amendment. So while Congress can regulate the federal government that is it a part of, we have to strike down the part regulating the states. Sorry y’all :/” So a bunch of states (and many of them have significant Native American populations, or in the case of Pennsylvania and Indiana’s previously weaker law, large Amish populations) were like, “oh sh*t, we gotta make sure the state government doesn’t violate these peoples’ rights unnecessarily!” and passed most of their laws IMMEDIATELY IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE SCOTUS DECISION IN THE LATE-1990S AND EARLY-2000S.

So nothing really happens in the meantime until the 2010s, when gay marriage becomes widely accepted and legalized following referendums and court decisions, culminating in the 2013 striking down of DOMA.

So conservative Christians, being the sore losers that they are, and believing themselves “persecuted”, had to find new ways to lash out against a society and legal system that was increasingly intolerant of their behavior. Also in the 2010s, Obamacare became a thing, so conservatives had to destroy that, and generally being religious, sought to hide behind their religion by asking SCOTUS to strike down the contraception mandate for employers in Obamacare, claiming that it constituted abortion (though most doctors and scientists disagreed, but that doesn’t stop religious conservatives, does it?) and they just couldn’t have that, and in a 5 -4 decision down ideological lines, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby.

So what does that have to do with this? Well, the broadness of the ruling, being a landmark ruling with no precedent, meant that conservatives now can try and exploit the ruling to their advantage, and businesses can now (theoretically, since SCOTUS has yet to deal with this more) claim exemption from pretty much any law, except tax laws, on “religious grounds”.

So SoCons are now turning to these intentionally vague “religious freedom” laws, justifying it with the broad and vague SCOTUS ruling, to allow businesses to discriminate against people and things they don’t like. This isn’t just about gay marriage and wedding cake, but also has profound implications for healthcare coverage, childcare services, employment, and general service. That’s why Mississippi and Indiana have now passed these laws, appropriating otherwise well-intentioned but vague and general laws for their SoCon agenda. WOW what a coincidence that sudden renewed interest in these laws arises just as SoCons lose their battle on gay marriage.

Same thing with the IRS “targeting scandal”: conservative groups began exploiting 501(c)4s starting in 2009 as a way to circumvent financial disclosure laws, and they start crying about how “persecuted” they are when the IRS is like, “What’s up with the sudden surge in applications for 501(c)4s, that seem to be primarily right-wing groups with some left-wing ones? Maybe we should check this out to make sure there's no fraud going on” and did so in a questionable but not really illegal way. They are exploiting an otherwise uncontroversial thing for their own gain (not that I’m absolving liberals of doing this in general, but in these specific cases it just so happens to be conservatives) then crying about it.

The laws you cite in other states were passed over a decade ago for entirely different reasons than what Indiana and Mississippi have passed, and what many other states are now considering.

Remember the difference between belief, speech, and action? The "new" interpretation of this will be used to justify discriminatory actions, and now they can claim legal protection for it, per SCOTUS. Sometimes they will win, sometimes they may lose, heck they could do nothing but lose, but in life or death situations, by the time the ruling has been made the damage will already be done. THAT is the problem.

You, being straight, can't seem to see our problem with it. We're just making everything up and whining for special protections that allow us to discriminate against everyone else, right? Too bad that Advance America, a group that lobbied Pence to sign it, announced on their page that it was primarily about discriminating against gays: http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?cat=5

So for those who cannot seem to understand this, they seem to be either a.) willfully ignorant because you really don’t like “those whiny homosexuals, always demanding special treatment” and so twist your language into sounding like this is a totally harmless bill with no malicious underlying intentions, and everyone is making a big deal about nothing, or b.) actually ignorant.

Looks like it might be both in your case.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: March 28, 2015, 08:54:57 PM »

I support conscience rights for those who act on religious grounds. I support conscience rights for those who act on nonreligious grounds. The fact that the latter do not have a stronger legal tradition behind them is no reason to me that I should not support conscience rights where I can. If you do not support the either anyway, then why is it so particularly vexing to you that these cases might be handled differently?

It is very strange that you say religious freedom laws give greater protection to religious belief than to a person. Who do you think these laws are for the benefit of if not for people?

What weaponizes one group over another is when disagreements over belief are taken to the realm of force, when the state says "you offended this person with your belief, now pay us a huge sum and/or go out of business."  You think that is a recipe for peace and cooperation between different groups of people?

It’s pretty clear you have no idea what you’re talking about, but then again from your posting history it’s pretty clear you have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to anything outside of your narrow, ideological point of view.

You don’t seem to understand the difference between religious thought, religious speech, and religious action (or thought, speech, and action in general)

The protections pertaining to your right to belief is absolute. You believe that homosexuality and abortion are immoral and go against your religion-based beliefs? That’s fine. No problem.

Your rights to speech are almost universally protected, only restricted in the time/manner/place sense and any legally-sanctioned restriction for government interest, among other things. You wanna give a speech about how abortion and homosexuality is wrong? Fine. People may disagree with you, using their freedom of speech, but the government cannot restrict you unless there is a time/manner/place issue, or if you do something like incite violence.

Your rights to action, however, are not universally protected.

Therein lies the problem with this bill.
 
The government is not going to fine someone or shut down their business because someone else complained about their beliefs. That’s a completely fabricated strawman you cooked up that conflates restrictions on action with a restriction on beliefs.

It is about beliefs, not just the action (or more accurately the lack of action).  If someone couldn't photoshoot a gay wedding because they already had that date booked, no one would think of bringing a case against them. 

Hobby Lobby was not without precedent and does not create a blanket allowance for anything, much less discrimination.  Have you read the actual decision?  And why do you assume the impetus for these laws are primarily about gay marriage rather than things like contraception and abortion?   Do you believe all the RFRA laws should be repealed because of your hypothetical concerns?

Please don't call me "straight." I don't give you permission to define my sexual identity for me.  Nor should you assume that all LGBT people agree with you on this. 
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: March 28, 2015, 09:21:38 PM »

An interesting radio interview here with a business owner:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/03/28/listen-indiana-restaurant-owner-pledges-to-refuse-service-to-gays/

He's proud of the law and lying to gay people so they leave his restaurant but not proud enough to openly say which restaurant it is. That should be part of these laws; they need to advertise who they won't serve, if not serving certain people is that important to them.

But, but, but.... this is all about MUH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  This is in no way, shape, or form homophobia.  

None of this:


You don't really seem to understand the concept of not wanting to ban something even if it's bad. People who discriminate against gay are indeed homophobes, and their behavior is deplorable. Some people are just of the opinion that the government shouldn't be in the business of regulating and correcting behavior. It's a pretty simple viewpoint but apparently it's too nuanced for people like you then try to imply that people who don't want to ban homophobic behavior are by implication supporters of that behavior. It's the same argument that the government always uses to increase its control over society, because few people want to stand to government behavioral modification when it's directed against people whose behavior is deplorable (in large part because people like you will then try to say that they're by implication supporters of said behavior.

It's like how all of those hypocritical world leaders were more than happy to participate in a disingenuous free speech march and say "Je Suis Charlie" but when it comes to restricting speech that most decent people consider deplorable, they're nowhere to be found.

Just like H.L. Mencken said, "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." It's easy to stand up for the right to popular speech and decent behavior, but when it comes to defending the rights of degenerates and scumbags, you get people like you who are basically like "If you support the right to do X, you must support X and are motivated by X."
Logged
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,590
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: March 28, 2015, 09:23:06 PM »
« Edited: March 28, 2015, 09:26:10 PM by Clarko95 »

It is about beliefs, not just the action (or more accurately the lack of action).  If someone couldn't photoshoot a gay wedding because they already had that date booked, no one would think of bringing a case against them.  
Yes, I know it's about beliefs, because they're using it as an excuse to discriminate. Belief-based actions.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I have not read every word of the decision, if that's what you're asking, but am familiar enough with the gist of it. I never said it created a blanket allowance. The problem is that people will try and cite laws like this to bring about the next court decision in their favor when they want to discriminate.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I don't. Read my post again in the part above the IRS paragraph, where I specifically say it's not just about gay marriage. Are you not reading the things people post here?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
No, rather clarified, and tied with non-discrimination legislation. And these concerns are not hypothetical. They're pretty real to those of us who may fall into disfavor with a landlord, store owner, employer, county marriage clerks, and police officers, among virtually any person in the world, for things other than our sexual orientation.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Alright, so then what are you? If it's something other than straight, chances are you could find yourself on the recieving end of poor treatment. And then all the modifications to RFRA laws, like the one introduced in South Dakota, would prohibit you from bringing a lawsuit if it just so happened to deal with your sexual orientation. You keep trying to act "above it all" as if this is happening somewhere it can't affect you, but these "hypothetical concerns" could get real personal for you, real fast.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: March 28, 2015, 09:48:51 PM »

Some of the proposed versions of RFRA laws are not good, like the one you cited introduced in  SD, which is why like in SD they tend not to get very far even in conservative states. There's nothing like that prohibition on bringing a suit in the IN law. The RFRA laws are generally about allowing possible line of defense in cases of a suit, not barring the suit to begin with, and don't deal specifically with sexual orientation.   

I don't know where you get the idea I am trying to act above it all, whatever that means. I guess because I defend the rights of people to live out their faith in ways I wouldn't? I do that because my own beliefs are important to me, I want to be able to live them out, and I wouldn't want the government to come in and tell me I couldn't so long as I wasn't actively aggressing on someone.  Ultimately being confident I can live according t the convictions of my conscience is a more important issue to me than the possibility offended or excluded by someone.  So if you are going to limit religious freedom, you'd better have a rock solid reason for doing so as far as I'm concerned.
Logged
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,590
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: March 28, 2015, 10:37:20 PM »

Some of the proposed versions of RFRA laws are not good, like the one you cited introduced in  SD, which is why like in SD they tend not to get very far even in conservative states. There's nothing like that prohibition on bringing a suit in the IN law. The RFRA laws are generally about allowing possible line of defense in cases of a suit, not barring the suit to begin with, and don't deal specifically with sexual orientation.  
So it's not as bad, therefore it's not bad at all? The fact that there are legislators trying to push this shows that there are people who will not stop at anything to continue pushing their agenda. Amendments are things that often are passed in the middle of the night or passed when no one is looking, and can have profound implications.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
What does this even mean? Your language is so empty and vague and broad that it means absolutely nothing, and can be interpreted in an infinte number of ways.

Yeah, you can "live out your faith" and I can "live our my faith", but when I attempt to use that as an excuse to discriminate against someone, it's a violation of another person's rights. I "live out my faith" by choosing to dedicate my life to non-profits and charities, treat everyone I meet with respect even if I don't like them, not mentally wish harm on others, and not drink, smoke, have promiscous sex, and do care for my body. I no way does me living out my faith in the above situations violate anyone's rights or discriminate.

You keep ignoring the point I am repeating: the problem is that some will try and interpret these laws so they can discriminate and violate others' rights. Whether the courts side with them or not in the end, the damage can already have been done.

Religion is not an excuse for antisocial behavior, which the groups lobbying in favor of these laws have specifically said on their own damn website is the point, and that they are proud that they are defending Christians from having to serve homosexuals and transgender people.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Again, this is so empty. In what ways do you practice your beliefs that you are scared the government is going to punish you? Give us some specific examples of what you practice and are afraid the government (oh no evil boogeyman) is going to actually come and do to you for that, or that someone will be offended.  

A substantial burden to religious freedom is not the same as any and all religious objections. Even the burden being substantial isn't enough, as it must then be weighed against other rights. Violating another's rights IS "actively aggressing on someone". Crying "religious freedom" is not a trump card; it does not mean everyone else automatically has to pack up their bags and go home.

If you want to limit another person's rights, you better have a better reason than "religious freedom", as far as I (and much of the legal basis of this country) is concerned.  
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 #121 on: March 28, 2015, 10:42:30 PM »

Once discrimination has eased to the point that the CRA is no longer needed it should be repealed, but obviously when that situation is reached is a subjective one.

And your idea that we gays have it alright so nothing needs to be done isn't subjective? You keep repeating your views over and over again despite addressing a forum with a large LBGT contingency who can give you personal experience to the contrary and each time you simply splutter over the issue. I don't think you ever set foot outside your own shadow.
Of course my opinions are subjective.  I've never been one to state otherwise.

Can you point to a case more onerous than non-participation in gay weddings that these RFRA laws have actually been used?  I keep hearing all sorts of worst case hypotheticals about how they might be used, such as the satirical piece from the National Review, but never any actual cases of the sort you and others keep mentioning as a reason why they are bad.
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 #122 on: March 28, 2015, 10:52:10 PM »

I think part of the law should function to create social limits, what is and is not acceptable behavior.
Which is what led to Jim Crow Laws, Prohibition, Blue Laws, just to mention a few of the things from our own past let alone foreign travesties like the Nuremberg laws.  The creation of social limits is not something that should be a goal of the law, tho it sometimes is a side effect.

Anti-discrimination laws led to the Nuremberg laws.  No...  That didn't happen.
For once you're right.  It didn't happen.  But my point wast that those laws led to anti-discrimination laws, but that both spring from the same source, viewing the law as a primary agent for forcing social change on people.  You see the possibility of some good coming from the changes you seek to force, but so did the people who passed the laws I referred to.  The primary lesson you draw from history is that the wrong social changes were imposed while the primary lesson I draw from history is that it is bad to be imposing social changes via the law.  It sometimes is necessary to deal with even worse problems.

You always make that assertion.  That we're depleted some precious life-force by having anti-discrimination laws and we've reached some breaking point where one more will lead to some nebulous bad outcome.  

Nobody knows what the hell you're talking about.  And, frankly, as a gay Jew, I'm personally offended that you would compare treating gay people with dignity to the Nuremburg laws.  That's a blatantly stupid thing to say.  And, that's just a basic fallacy.  Changing a law was bad once, so we can never change a law ever.  What about abolishing slavery?  Was that bad?  It certainly upended southern society by changing the law.

Laws are there to make people avoid anti-social behavior, killing each other, arson, stealing, etc.  Now, if you think arson or discrimination is fine, then it doesn't make sense.  But, your argument just pre-supposes that discriminating is not really a problem or truly anti-social behavior.  The non-green avatars simply assume that discrimination is valid behavior that ought to be protected, without telling us why.  We don't assume that discrimination is a trivial matter and all victims of discrimination are just crybabies, you do.  Make that argument, don't just skip to the part where you say, trivial things don't deserve legal redress.  I don't think it's trivial, convince me of that.  

Who said I thought discrimination trivial?  What I think is that the application of government power is decidedly not trivial and thus is not to be used except to prevent actual economic or physical harm. Arson, theft, murder, etc.: those all cause economic and/or physical harm to others and thus are certainly things to be dealt with by the law.  Discrimination may cause those things and when it does rise to that level it too should be dealt with by the law.  But when it doesn't and the only harm it causes is making those discriminated feel bad, then it shouldn't.  It is not insignificant that the Declaration of Independence mentions the right to the pursuit of happiness and not a right to happiness.  Governments can and should promote the former.  It is a foolish illusion to think they can guarantee the latter.
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: March 29, 2015, 10:27:18 AM »

It seems to me that government power can be used to protect things like freedom of speech or right to assemble, even when restrictions on freedom of speech or assembly may not directly cause physical or economic harm.  Even if one individual's freedom or speech or assembly rights are impinged, I don't think the individual's case so trivial that they can't bring a case against that impingement.  Why then would defending people's rights to be treated equitably in business transactions need to pass some kind of critical mass test before such defense can be undertaken?  And I still fail to see how expecting the owner of a cake store to sell already available products to customers willing to pay the seller's price for them as the imposition of a "substantial burden" on them.  But now Indiana and some 19 other states protect the cake store owner. 
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,425
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: March 29, 2015, 03:18:25 PM »

The government does not have the right to infringe upon individual rights.


Business owners, on the other hand....
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9  
« 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 0.093 seconds with 12 queries.