RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Republicans hate gays, Part 567,204
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14900
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/15 7:12 pm    ::: Republicans hate gays, Part 567,204 Reply Reply with quote

Indiana is set to pass an incredibly sweeping law that will allow the discrimination against gays and lesbians by businesses, overriding city and county non-discrimination policies.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/23/indiana-house-oks-controversial-religious-freedom-bill/70336706/

In case anyone wonders, this is virtually a completely partisan issue. All Democrats in both houses of the legislature voted against the bill. All but five (out of more than 100) Republicans voted against this bill; every Democrat in both houses voted against it.

That is what is perhaps most important in this bill. Discrimination is a partisan issue, where Republicans are actively passing a bills to explicitly hurt gay people, and Democrats are actively fighting them. Anyone voting for a Republican in this country is actively supporting this fight.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12094
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/15 10:49 pm    ::: Re: Republicans hate gays, Part 567,204 Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
In case anyone wonders, this is virtually a completely partisan issue. All Democrats in both houses of the legislature voted against the bill. All but five (out of more than 100) Republicans voted against this bill; every Democrat in both houses voted against it.


I'm puzzled here....if ALL Dems voted against it, and over 95 Reps voted against it---how could it have passed? Shocked



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
Luuuc



Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 19689



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/15 3:01 am    ::: Re: Republicans hate gays, Part 567,204 Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
In case anyone wonders, this is virtually a completely partisan issue. All Democrats in both houses of the legislature voted against the bill. All but five (out of more than 100) Republicans voted against this bill; every Democrat in both houses voted against it.


I'm puzzled here....if ALL Dems voted against it, and over 95 Reps voted against it---how could it have passed? Shocked


Typo. He meant to write that all but 5 Repubs voted for it. As stated in the linked article.



_________________
Is there gas in the car?
Yes there's gas in the car.
caune



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 17919
Location: Valley of the Bun


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/15 7:54 am    ::: Re: Republicans hate gays, Part 567,204 Reply Reply with quote

I hope people cancel their events and conventions in droves! It happened here in Arizona when we considered the SB1070 bill, people just refused to come.
Downtown Indianapolis seems to do a bang up job of hosting events and I feel bad for business people who just want to do business with anyones money, but a boycott is necessary if the Governor signs this POS bill!



_________________
Because there is only one Diana Taurasi.
@Phoenix Mercury
scullyfu



Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 8539
Location: Niagara Falls


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/15 8:57 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

i used to work in Convention Services at D'land in Cali for many moons.

unfortunately, these big conventions are locked in years in advance. and to be able to scramble at the last minute to move to a new (available) venue, secure hotel rooms, etc. is nothing short of a nightmare. Smile


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7808
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/15 10:15 am    ::: Re: Republicans hate gays, Part 567,204 Reply Reply with quote

caune wrote:
I hope people cancel their events and conventions in droves! It happened here in Arizona when we considered the SB1070 bill, people just refused to come.
Downtown Indianapolis seems to do a bang up job of hosting events and I feel bad for business people who just want to do business with anyones money, but a boycott is necessary if the Governor signs this POS bill!

Gen Con has already announced that if this law is signed they will look for a new home.

Quote:
The organizers of Gen Con, the city's largest convention in attendance and economic impact, are threatening to move the event elsewhere if Gov. Mike Pence signs controversial religious freedom legislation that could allow business owners to refuse services to same-sex couples.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12094
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/15 10:17 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

scullyfu wrote:
i used to work in Convention Services at D'land in Cali for many moons.

unfortunately, these big conventions are locked in years in advance. and to be able to scramble at the last minute to move to a new (available) venue, secure hotel rooms, etc. is nothing short of a nightmare. Smile


As true as that may be, all it takes is 1 or 2 sizeable organizations to stand up and say, "We protest". And it can also start now, where significant groups can say, "We WERE going to book in Indy, but now we won't". The media attention can make that grow, hopefully, into more and more and create the pressure needed to shame them.

Sickening as it is, I still say it's just some pathetic Death Gasps by those who cling to their Neanderthal/Uber-Christian agenda.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14900
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/15 11:06 am    ::: Re: Republicans hate gays, Part 567,204 Reply Reply with quote

Luuuc wrote:
Howee wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
In case anyone wonders, this is virtually a completely partisan issue. All Democrats in both houses of the legislature voted against the bill. All but five (out of more than 100) Republicans voted against this bill; every Democrat in both houses voted against it.


I'm puzzled here....if ALL Dems voted against it, and over 95 Reps voted against it---how could it have passed? Shocked


Typo. He meant to write that all but 5 Repubs voted for it. As stated in the linked article.


That's right.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5714
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/15 4:51 pm    ::: Re: Republicans hate gays, Part 567,204 Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:

Republicans are actively passing a bills to explicitly hurt gay people, and Democrats are actively fighting them.


I doubt that anyone who voted for the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), or any of the state RFRA's like the recent one passed in Indiana, would characterize the legislation or the legislators in such a hysterical way.

The purpose of the legislation is to prevent state government laws from unconstitutionally intruding on the Free Exercise of Religion, a constitutional right that is found in the first clause of the first sentence of the first amendment of the United States Constitution -- and somewhere in every state constitution.

The competing cultural interest is for members of the public, such as gays, to receive services from wholly intra-state private businesses. I use the term "cultural interest" for lack of a better term, and to emphasize that there is no "right" to such private business services in the Constitution.

This Indiana legislation is modeled on RFRA, which provides similar protections to private businesses against federal -- but not state -- laws that intrude on the religious beliefs of private business owners. RFRA was introduced by uber-liberal Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), passed unanimously by the heavily Democratic House of Representatives and 97-3 in the heavily Democratic Senate.

In 1997 the Supreme Court held that RFRA applied only to religiously intrusive federal laws but not to state laws. Since then, several states have passed state equivalents of RFRA to close this religious freedom loophole for state laws. That's what the Indiana legislation is.

For a scholarly and non-hysterical analysis of RFRA legislation, here is Professor Volokh:

http://volokh.com/2013/12/02/1a-religious-freedom-restoration-act/

Simply put, RFRA-type legislation is aimed at preventing the state from passing laws that unconstitutionally intrude on person's religious belief that some practice is either mandated or prohibited by that person's particular religion.

In the context of gay "rights" to private business services, the competition is between a recently accelerating cultural preference for gay equality in all areas vs. the deeply-rooted Constitutional law that people (including small business owners) can practice their religious moral convictions without contrary compulsions from government laws -- e.g., a city or state law that required florists to sell flowers for ceremonies that contravene the florists' religious moral teaching.

I think it is wholly inappropriate to label a legislator who believes that a fundamental Constitutional right should trump a cultural preference as a partisan bigot who wants to "hurt gay people". One could just as well label the legislators on the other side as "lawless traitors to the Constitution" or as "bigoted haters of religious freedom."

It's so, so tiring to see every important legal, cultural and moral debate in this county reduced to superficial identity politics, red-blue knee-jerk tribalism, and the simplistic slinging of ad hominem insults.
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14900
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/15 5:53 pm    ::: Re: Republicans hate gays, Part 567,204 Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
PUmatty wrote:

Republicans are actively passing a bills to explicitly hurt gay people, and Democrats are actively fighting them.


I doubt that anyone who voted for the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), or any of the state RFRA's like the recent one passed in Indiana, would characterize the legislation or the legislators in such a hysterical way.

The purpose of the legislation is to prevent state government laws from unconstitutionally intruding on the Free Exercise of Religion, a constitutional right that is found in the first clause of the first sentence of the first amendment of the United States Constitution -- and somewhere in every state constitution.

The competing cultural interest is for members of the public, such as gays, to receive services from wholly intra-state private businesses. I use the term "cultural interest" for lack of a better term, and to emphasize that there is no "right" to such private business services in the Constitution.

This Indiana legislation is modeled on RFRA, which provides similar protections to private businesses against federal -- but not state -- laws that intrude on the religious beliefs of private business owners. RFRA was introduced by uber-liberal Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), passed unanimously by the heavily Democratic House of Representatives and 97-3 in the heavily Democratic Senate.

In 1997 the Supreme Court held that RFRA applied only to religiously intrusive federal laws but not to state laws. Since then, several states have passed state equivalents of RFRA to close this religious freedom loophole for state laws. That's what the Indiana legislation is.

For a scholarly and non-hysterical analysis of RFRA legislation, here is Professor Volokh:

http://volokh.com/2013/12/02/1a-religious-freedom-restoration-act/

Simply put, RFRA-type legislation is aimed at preventing the state from passing laws that unconstitutionally intrude on person's religious belief that some practice is either mandated or prohibited by that person's particular religion.

In the context of gay "rights" to private business services, the competition is between a recently accelerating cultural preference for gay equality in all areas vs. the deeply-rooted Constitutional law that people (including small business owners) can practice their religious moral convictions without contrary compulsions from government laws -- e.g., a city or state law that required florists to sell flowers for ceremonies that contravene the florists' religious moral teaching.

I think it is wholly inappropriate to label a legislator who believes that a fundamental Constitutional right should trump a cultural preference as a partisan bigot who wants to "hurt gay people". One could just as well label the legislators on the other side as "lawless traitors to the Constitution" or as "bigoted haters of religious freedom."

It's so, so tiring to see every important legal, cultural and moral debate in this county reduced to superficial identity politics, red-blue knee-jerk tribalism, and the simplistic slinging of ad hominem insults.


Thanks for demonstrating your position so clearly. It is always helpful.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 59642
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/15 7:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It makes no more sense now than it did when people were claiming religion as an excuse to refuse service to black people



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
Barrister15



Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 4268
Location: New York, NY


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/15 7:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
It makes no more sense now than it did when people were claiming religion as an excuse to refuse service to black people


Nope.

One can only hide behind religion for so long to use it as an excuse to be a bigoted douchenozzle.


Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 5667



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/15 8:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
scullyfu wrote:
i used to work in Convention Services at D'land in Cali for many moons.

unfortunately, these big conventions are locked in years in advance. and to be able to scramble at the last minute to move to a new (available) venue, secure hotel rooms, etc. is nothing short of a nightmare. Smile


As true as that may be, all it takes is 1 or 2 sizeable organizations to stand up and say, "We protest". And it can also start now, where significant groups can say, "We WERE going to book in Indy, but now we won't". The media attention can make that grow, hopefully, into more and more and create the pressure needed to shame them.

Sickening as it is, I still say it's just some pathetic Death Gasps by those who cling to their Neanderthal/Uber-Christian agenda.


Need to get the NCAA on board along with GenCon.

And even though GenCon has the convention center booked for the next five years or so, that doesn't mean people will be there. George Takai has already spoken out about it.


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15768
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/15 9:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Did I seriously, in the year 2015, see someone put quotes around the word "rights" in the context of gay rights?

I wonder how long this bill would last in the framework of "get out of here, Jews; my religious beliefs prohibit giving service to the killers of Christ". Or "get out of here, black people; my religious beliefs prohibit the mixing of races". Or so on and so forth. But as soon as it's bigotry against gays, you've got people falling all over themselves to defend it. You want to legalize discrimination against my friends and my family? Fuck outta here with that bullshit, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5714
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/15 11:05 pm    ::: Re: Republicans hate gays, Part 567,204 Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:


Thanks for demonstrating your position so clearly. It is always helpful.


Let me try to be even clearer, for the three people on this site who may be interested, since I'm positive that 99% of the people who read about this legislation don't understand what it is at all.

Here is what the operative heart of the proposed Indiana statute says:

"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."


This is exactly what the 1993 federal RFRA says. That's it. There's no focus on gays, blacks, women or any other identity group. What does this language mean and where does it come from?

Background: The free exercise of religion (FER) is a Constitutional right of all citizens, but it is not an absolute right. No right is absolute; there are exceptions to every one. Government can pass some laws that infringe on religious beliefs. The problem is where the courts should draw the Constitutional line when a law is challenged as violating FER.

For example, what if:

-- a Mormon says polygamy is part of his religion, but a law bans it.

-- a Native American says a peyote ceremony is part of his religion's sacraments, but a law bans the drug.

-- a Jew or Christian photographer says that the moral Commandment against adultery prohibits her from providing photographic services to the National Wife Swappers Orgy, but a law says that photographers cannot discriminate against clients as to what events they are being hired to photograph.

-- a Muslim doctor says that the Quran, the verbatim word of God, commands him to genitally mutilate young women, but a law prohibits the practice.

How does a court decide which of these laws is constitutional or unconstitutional under FER?

Faced with these kinds of difficult fact situations and competing legal and moral interests, the U.S. Supreme Court over the past 70 years has struggled and flip-flopped on where the Constitutional line is to be drawn -- or, stated differently, what the wording "test" should be for a violation of FER. These tests have varied from "weak" tests, which allow a lot of religiously intrusive laws to survive FER challenges, to "strict scrutiny" tests, which allow far fewer religiously intrusive laws to be constitutional under FER.

From 1963 to 1990 the Supreme Court followed a strict scrutiny test, which is sometimes called the Sherbert test or the Sherbert-Yoder test. The Supreme Court's wording of that test was adopted almost verbatim as the operative words of RFRA and of the Indiana statute above.

In 1990 the Supreme Court overruled the Sherbert-Yoder test in a case called Smith, which reverted back to a weaker protection of FER. The Smith case upheld the Oregon law that criminalized the Native Americans who wanted to smoke peyote as part of their religious sacraments.

There was widespread negative reaction on both sides of the political aisle to the Smith decision, and the heavily Democratic Congress passed RFRA, virtually unanimously, to legislatively overrule Smith and to require courts to use the Sherbert-Yoder strict scrutiny test in all future FER cases. Thus the operative wording of RFRA.

And thus the operative wording of all the "little RFRA" statutes being adopted by states such as Indiana. (My understanding is that the state courts in Indiana have already adopted a strict scrutiny FER test even prior to proposed legislation, which would merely prohibit the Indiana courts from flip-flopping or changing their mind.)

In summary, the Indiana legislation is simply an attempt to mirror RFRA at the state level to provide the same sort of strict scrutiny test to free exercise of religion cases as is applied to establishment of religion cases and freedom of (non-commercial) speech cases.

To oppose this very general pro-religious freedom statute on the grounds that it is "anti-gay" is a rhetorical political stunt, which grossly trivializes and mischaracterizes the statute's Constitutional background, purpose and general effect. I haven't looked, but I'd be interested in any case from 1963 to 1990, the Sherbert-Yoder era, in which the then prevailing strict scrutiny test was used to uphold discrimination against gay people in a FER case.

The ONLY issue regarding this proposed Indiana statue is whether Indiana courts must use the Sherbert-Yoder strict scrutiny test in FER cases or may use the lesser scrutiny standard of Smith. There's nothing else at issue or at stake. Under either judicial approach there are possibilities that laws will be struck down -- possibly including laws that attempt to protect gays, Native Americans, Mormons, wife swappers, or Muslims -- as being too intrusive on the free exercise of religion.


Last edited by GlennMacGrady on 03/27/15 10:52 am; edited 1 time in total
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5714
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/15 3:13 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
It makes no more sense now than it did when people were claiming religion as an excuse to refuse service to black people


I'm genuinely curious. Can you identify any case where the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the Constitution was held to justify an otherwise illegal refusal to service black people?

As I've tried to explain above, the only thing this proposed statute does is to specify which of two available judicial standards the Indiana courts must use when adjudicating whether a state law is constitutional under the FER Clause.
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/15 7:54 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
pilight wrote:
It makes no more sense now than it did when people were claiming religion as an excuse to refuse service to black people


I'm genuinely curious. Can you identify any case where the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the Constitution was held to justify an otherwise illegal refusal to service black people?

As I've tried to explain above, the only thing this proposed statute does is to specify which of two available judicial standards the Indiana courts must use when adjudicating whether a state law is constitutional under the FER Clause.


Sure. Bob Jones University used to refuse to admit blacks on religious grounds, and once it started admitting blacks, refused anyone who engaged in interracial dating, also on religious grounds.

In any event, the purpose of these laws is quite clear, and it's not to protect religious freedom generally. It's to let people refuse to serve gays.


Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 5667



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/15 8:28 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Don't forget that Pence has been talked about as a possible presidential candidate.

Trust me, you don't want him as your president!!!!!!!!!!


Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 5667



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/15 2:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

NCAA comments:

http://wishtv.com/2015/03/26/ncaa-releases-statement-on-religious-freedom-bill/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2015/03/26/ncaa-tournament-final-four-indiana-religious-freedom-law-gay-rights/70492134/


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12094
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/15 4:02 pm    ::: Re: Republicans hate gays, Part 567,204 Reply Reply with quote

Glenn, your attempts to clarify this may be well-intended, but are (in my case, at least) confusing to those of us without a law degree. Wink

Now, THIS part....

GlennMacGrady wrote:
The purpose of the legislation is to prevent state government laws from unconstitutionally intruding on the Free Exercise of Religion, a constitutional right that is found in the first clause of the first sentence of the first amendment of the United States Constitution -- and somewhere in every state constitution.


....THIS sticks in my craw. Shocked

First of all, I'd strongly suggest that we'd ALL be a lot better off if "Free Exercise of Religion" were confined to the churches, mosques, temples, etc., of our society and NOT 'practiced' in our places of business and government.

BUT. Most (all?) religions encourage and exhort their adherants to implement their religious beliefs and values throughout all parts of one's life. Okay. Where is the delineation of what/when/how YOUR religion's practices clashes with MY religion's practices, and WHOSE values should prevail?

WHAT IF:
*"My" religion demands I slaughter a goat in the town square on the first of every month, AND spread the blood on the doors of all "other" religious buildings?
*"My" religion requires that we locate AND visibly assemble to protest all heterosexual marriages in my community with large, graphically disgusting placards?
*Etc., etc., etc.....

Can we all agree, even the ACLU wouldn't give "us" the time of day?

The Christian Right--make NO mistake--is The Force behind such political slimery. Yes, they've learned to couch their "points" in legalese, and articulate things in ways that even appeal to the (fairly mindless) masses. But what IN is attempting is most Un-American, in the most blatant way. This is government sanctioning of "Morals and Values" that would denigrate an entire class of citizens. Step 2 or 3? Sharia Law, right?



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/15 6:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
It makes no more sense now than it did when people were claiming religion as an excuse to refuse service to black people


"Commerce" would seem to me to be a decidedly non-religious act. Passage of this Bill would be a slippery slope. indeed.

But pilight, doesn't the Libertarian platform support this as "freedom of association?"

Quote:
For voluntary dealings among private entities, parties should be free to choose with whom they trade and set whatever trade terms are mutually agreeable.


Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 5667



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/15 8:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Story about the signing along with 231 comments (at this time) and a picture.

http://wane.com/2015/03/26/pence-signs-religious-freedom-bill/


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7808
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/15 9:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ex-Ref wrote:
Story about the signing along with 231 comments (at this time) and a picture.

http://wane.com/2015/03/26/pence-signs-religious-freedom-bill/


From the above article:

Quote:
Supporters say discrimination concerns are overblown and that the Indiana measure merely seeks to prevent the government from compelling people to provide such things as catering or photography for same-sex weddings or other activities they find objectionable on religious grounds


This is the very definition of discrimination: refusing to provide a service to people based upon their sexual orientation. If you provide a public good, you need to provide that good to all people, and not refuse your service to people just because you dislike who they are and what they represent.

So, what these people are essentially saying is "This isn't about discrimination, we just want the right to discriminate if our religion objects to it."



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 59642
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/15 9:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Ex-Ref wrote:
Story about the signing along with 231 comments (at this time) and a picture.

http://wane.com/2015/03/26/pence-signs-religious-freedom-bill/


From the above article:

Quote:
Supporters say discrimination concerns are overblown and that the Indiana measure merely seeks to prevent the government from compelling people to provide such things as catering or photography for same-sex weddings or other activities they find objectionable on religious grounds


This is the very definition of discrimination: refusing to provide a service to people based upon their sexual orientation. If you provide a public good, you need to provide that good to all people, and not refuse your service to people just because you dislike who they are and what they represent.

So, what these people are essentially saying is "This isn't about discrimination, we just want the right to discriminate if our religion objects to it."


That's going too far. You can't mandate that a photographer take every job that's offered to him, for example.



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7808
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/15 9:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Ex-Ref wrote:
Story about the signing along with 231 comments (at this time) and a picture.

http://wane.com/2015/03/26/pence-signs-religious-freedom-bill/


From the above article:

Quote:
Supporters say discrimination concerns are overblown and that the Indiana measure merely seeks to prevent the government from compelling people to provide such things as catering or photography for same-sex weddings or other activities they find objectionable on religious grounds


This is the very definition of discrimination: refusing to provide a service to people based upon their sexual orientation. If you provide a public good, you need to provide that good to all people, and not refuse your service to people just because you dislike who they are and what they represent.

So, what these people are essentially saying is "This isn't about discrimination, we just want the right to discriminate if our religion objects to it."


That's going too far. You can't mandate that a photographer take every job that's offered to him, for example.

No, but you can mandate reasons why a person cannot be turned down.

Say I run a motel. I can absolutely turn away people because I don't have rooms available or the staff required to run the place. Heck, I could turn people away just because I don't feel like working that day.

What I cannot do is turn people away because they are homosexual and might have the evil sodomies in my establishment.

If I am a photographer, I could turn people down because I am too busy to take on knew clients, or because I am going on vacation, or because I have a scheduling conflict that day. What I cannot do is turn down business that I would otherwise take, based upon their sexual orientation.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 1 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin