Author Topic: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law  (Read 17807 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,391
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #150 on: April 03, 2015, 12:51:39 am »
If it tells you anything, George Takei has called off the dogs.
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #151 on: April 03, 2015, 12:59:28 am »
None of us have that choice.

You can't just abide by the decisions that you support (Hobby Lobby) and not by the ones you oppose (Lawrence). That would lead to the end of all law and order, and lead to anarchy.

Their ability to make these decisions is enshrined in the Constitution itself.

BTW. They don't "decide matters of religious conscience" for anyone. They decide how the Constitution and all applicable laws should be observed for everyone.


:thumbsup:

Online Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,681
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #152 on: April 03, 2015, 02:09:54 am »
Luis wrote above:
[[ Many subjects, but only one topic... the culture war that's raging in the nation. ]]

Yes, indeed Luis!

But....
.... from the gist of your postings, one sometimes wonders which side of the battle you are on.

Did you not write in a previous post somewhere a day or two back, that you believed that a person in business should be able to refuse service to anyone? (Granted, laws now forbid it)

I would have no problems with that. I'm -for- "discrimination" -- the concept makes a civilized society created by "alike people" possible. It is anti-diversity personified.

As I try to make sense of the back-and-forth regarding the Indiana law (and there are numerous other laws like it on the books, even here in leftist Connecticut!), my conclusion is simple:

Lester Maddox had it right at the Pickrick Restaurant years ago.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #153 on: April 03, 2015, 03:01:34 am »
Luis wrote above:
[[ Many subjects, but only one topic... the culture war that's raging in the nation. ]]

Yes, indeed Luis!

But....
.... from the gist of your postings, one sometimes wonders which side of the battle you are on.

Did you not write in a previous post somewhere a day or two back, that you believed that a person in business should be able to refuse service to anyone? (Granted, laws now forbid it)

I would have no problems with that. I'm -for- "discrimination" -- the concept makes a civilized society created by "alike people" possible. It is anti-diversity personified.

As I try to make sense of the back-and-forth regarding the Indiana law (and there are numerous other laws like it on the books, even here in leftist Connecticut!), my conclusion is simple:

Lester Maddox had it right at the Pickrick Restaurant years ago.

Immediately after that I pointed out that that's not the world we live in, that's my fantasy libertarian world.

In my fantasy world, marriage would belong to the Church and the Church exclusively. Everything else would be a civil union.

Whose side am I on?

Normally the one that makes the most sense, engages in the least amount of hysterics and spreads the least misinformation.

I don't formulate an opinion on an issue based on the opinions of others, I am instead a staunch believer in formulating my own opinion based on the facts at hand that I can see and read.

I believe I am a conservative to the degree that I am a Liberal Classic with my own modifications thrown in.

I think I am an independent thinker that believes in the benefits of smaller government and greater individual freedoms and since those are the actual pillars of conservatism, I call myself a conservative.

I am by no means a social conservative, since I see social conservatives as being big government collectivists.

I am pragmatic as Hell. Too much sometimes.

I think that this bill was flawed, and I can't force myself to think that it wasn't flawed in order to fit into someone else's idea of where I should fit in.

And finally, I've long since stopped adhering to the "white hat, black hat" view of politics and ideological politics.

No one has cleans hands in the current mess that we're in.

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Lando Lincoln

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,537
  • Gender: Male
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #154 on: April 03, 2015, 11:17:25 am »
An interesting perspective from Salon.  Yes, Salon:

This is how Indiana Gov. Mike Pence wins: Moral superiority, “religious freedom,” social media hypocrisy and the problem with #BoycottIndiana
Let's stop patting ourselves on the back: Public pressure hurt Indiana's activists and enhanced governor's profile
VICTORIA BARRETT
Salon
April 2, 2015

This morning, members of the Indiana General Assembly and a selection of Indianapolis business leaders appeared at a press conference to announce amendments to the RFRA that Gov. Mike Pence signed into law last week. The changes represent a limited victory for supporters of human rights. If you think the ill-conceived, celebrity-endorsed consumer boycott of Indiana had anything to do with the alteration of the law, you should pay closer attention. In particular, pay attention to who stood next to the legislators at this morning’s press conference. The actual events that have unfolded in the past week tell a different story.

Pence and the Indiana Legislature passed and signed an unneeded law with outrageous potential for abuse. Though the bill does not mention LGBTQ people, its timing, following on the heels of the judicial establishment of legal same-sex marriage in Indiana and, before that, the failure of the state’s marriage amendment, is suspect at best. But the real goals of this law were otherwise, and chances are, if you advocated a boycott, you helped accomplish at least one of them.

The bill’s first purpose was to shine the national spotlight on Pence in advance of his 2016 presidential announcement. Mission accomplished. While progressives are shouting about electability, the entire GOP field is making its customary shift to the right in order to woo the absolute extremes of the conservative wing of the party in order to open pocketbooks and launch primaries.

The second goal was to establish a law that would be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court—a dubious honor that state legislatures all over the country have been pursuing, mostly with bills restricting reproductive rights. Whether this goal is still achievable after the law’s alteration remains to be seen.

As usual, the Internet exploded in self-congratulatory moral superiority. Celebrities and corporations alike took advantage of the situation in order to call attention to themselves and their own high ground, and everyday people showed themselves to be champions of civil rights on social media. Social media activism can be and often is powerful. But Indiana’s economy as a whole is essentially boycott-proof, built as it is on pre-production industrial materials (aluminum, automotive components, seed and feed corn, etc.), distribution, medical devices, and intellectual property, among other unavoidable purchases. But as long as you employed the #BoycottIndiana hashtag a sufficient number of times, you found yourself on the right side of the discussion.

Instead of impacting the law, though, what your boycott accomplished was to damage the city of Indianapolis, a city where LGBTQ people have been protected as a class from discrimination for 10 years, a city that has been consistently victimized by the state Legislature and governor’s office throughout Pence’s term and Gov. Mitch Daniels’ before it. The state has stripped away the city’s control of its own schools, severely increased income inequality through terrible economic policy, and deliberately situated new employment opportunities, like the Honda plant that opened in Greensburg, Indiana, in 2006, outside driving range of residents of the city. And why shouldn’t they? They’re serving the rural constituents who put them in office and keep them there. Meanwhile, this “boycott,” which has consisted of pressuring organizations to move their conventions out of the city, has further punished the residents and business leaders of Indianapolis who have been fighting laws like this for more than a decade, and who defeated the state’s marriage ban last year.

So now, at the behest of local business leaders, the Legislature has agreed to add protections against discrimination, a compromise that was announced with representatives from the NBA’s Indiana Pacers and Salesforce, among others, standing by. Note that these are not companies that produce consumer products; they’re local leaders taking care of the situation here at home, without your help. Meanwhile, everybody loses: The conservatives who pushed for this law in the first place are livid that the legislators they thought they owned have caved. Those who advocated for a boycott of the state won’t be happy until LGBTQ residents are afforded full class protections statewide, despite the fact that such protections would never even have been up for discussion two weeks ago. And Indianapolis, a diverse, vibrant city struggling hard with education, crime and its own governance issues, has lost an estimated $250 million in future economic impact.

Well, not everybody loses. Owners of a strip-mall pizza dive near the Michigan border, after claiming to have received death threats for expressing anti-gay views, are sitting back watching the donations roll in. A writer nobody knows from anywhere but Twitter is receiving a hundred times the attention for pulling out of a tiny area writing conference than he would have received for attending. A lot of celebrities have raised their profiles through their public expressions of outrage. And Pence has sealed his status as a leading national conservative voice heading into the 2016 election season, and is grateful for your help disempowering the most liberal voting base in his state. Meanwhile a city full of LGBTQ allies is out an irreplaceable sum of money.

And what, exactly, did those who boycotted Indiana boycott? Did they decline to buy that new Honda Civic or Subaru they’ve been eyeing? Cancel their Anthem/Blue Cross/Blue Shield health insurance? Stop taking their antidepressants or diabetes drugs? What, exactly, is a boycott if you weren’t planning to participate in the subject’s economy anyway? #BoycottIndiana has been nothing more than a soapbox for people to stand on and shout from afar while the people of Indiana fight like hell to get their state back. Make no mistake: Today’s developments were a result of that fight from the inside, not from the deployment of a clever hashtag.

Victoria Barrett's work has appeared in Glimmer Train, Colorado Review, Confrontation, The Massachusetts Review, and Puerto del Sol. She is the editor and publisher of Engine Books, a boutique fiction press. She lives and writes in Indianapolis.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/02/this_is_how_indiana_gov_mike_pence_wins_moral_superiority_religious_freedom_social_media_hypocrisy_and_the_problem_with_boycottindiana/
There are some among us who live in rooms of experience we can never enter.
John Steinbeck

Offline Lando Lincoln

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,537
  • Gender: Male
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #155 on: April 03, 2015, 11:21:23 am »
M'lady, Luis... props.

Happy Easter to all.
There are some among us who live in rooms of experience we can never enter.
John Steinbeck

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,346
  • Gender: Male
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #156 on: April 03, 2015, 12:05:36 pm »
Immediately after that I pointed out that that's not the world we live in, that's my fantasy libertarian world.


Inalienable rights are not a fantasy, that is why we call them "inalienable."  If you don't think religious rights are inalienable, what about property rights?  I am not sure how you reconcile your professed classical liberalism, conservatism and/or libertarianism with opposition to this bill because opposition to this legislation violates foundational tenets of all three  philosophies.

The point of believing in basic rights is that one should believe in them even when people do stupid things with their own rights, such as refusing to service a high growth, high income market like gays.  As a business owner myself, I hope my competitors refuse to serve gays so that I can then go after that market myself.  That is the way the free market works.  Instead, we now have the state stepping in to dictate things and this just adds one more artificial constraint to a system that has way too many of them already.

You should know this already.  I am surprised at you, Luis.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 80,364
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #157 on: April 03, 2015, 12:58:31 pm »
I'm surprised too.  I'm surprised the fellow who chided everybody yesterday for not reading the original bill passed in IN was able to tell us the bill passed yesterday is a good one before it was even signed.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline evadR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,190
  • Gender: Male
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #158 on: April 03, 2015, 01:12:23 pm »
While it may be true that we're all guilty in this mess, some are waaay more guilty than others.
Big spending lib dims=very very guilty
Big spending RINOs (yes, RINOs)=guilty
True Conservatives=cudos for putting up the good fight but still somewhat guilty
Anyway, that's MHO

The question is, what's it going to take to get out of this mess?

Apparently, according to what I hear, the people on these forums represent only a tiny portion of the voting population.  Those people are quite happy with the way things are going OR couldn't care less.
Doesn't sound like a formula for turning things around.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #159 on: April 03, 2015, 01:38:36 pm »
M'lady, Luis... props.

Happy Easter to all.

Thanks, Lando!  I was coming back to this thread today to compliment everyone on a lively and informative discussion that, IMO, was pretty much polite the entire time!

It's been fascinating to read all the different perspectives on a very thorny issue, and I think, if our minds are open even slightly, that the opportunity was here for all of us to learn and grow.

Happy Easter to all from me as well!
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #160 on: April 03, 2015, 01:39:36 pm »
Inalienable rights are not a fantasy, that is why we call them "inalienable."  If you don't think religious rights are inalienable, what about property rights? I am not sure how you reconcile your professed classical liberalism, conservatism and/or libertarianism with opposition to this bill because opposition to this legislation violates foundational tenets of all three  philosophies.

The point of believing in basic rights is that one should believe in them even when people do stupid things with their own rights, such as refusing to service a high growth, high income market like gays.  As a business owner myself, I hope my competitors refuse to serve gays so that I can then go after that market myself.  That is the way the free market works.  Instead, we now have the state stepping in to dictate things and this just adds one more artificial constraint to a system that has way too many of them already.

You should know this already.  I am surprised at you, Luis.

I don't really want to have the exact same discussion on the same topic time and time again with different people.

The world we live in is far from that fantasy libertarian world, and maybe my pragmatism clashes with my libertarianism, but I see the bill as written as being flawed because in essence it has the government inviting a specific group people to discriminate with impunity.

In that fantasy world, there would be no need for this bill because everyone would have the right to deny service to anyone else for any or no reason at any time, and the free market would then decide what the reaction to those actions would be.

But I live in this world, in a society has decided that we don't like discrimination, real or perceived, and that laws will be passed so that no sub-segment of the population will be made to feel less than another so to try and live and opine on issues based on pure libertarian ideology is simply mental masturbation, and accomplishes nothing so I don't do it. It would be like saying that I like tall redheads and my wife is an average size brown haired girl so I will live my life loving the idea of a tall redhead more than my wife.

That's stupid.

In this society, we have already told the Mormons that they can't practice plural marriage, we place heavy restrictions and regulations on the ritual slaughter of animals by Santeria and VooDoo priests, and no, the new Indiana law will not allow the State's Rastafarians to smoke weed.

So we are all here discussing the inalienable rights of Christians with a bill designed to protect the rights of Christians who make up the majority of the nation's religious population, and who are instrumental in violating the equally constitutionally-protected and inalienable rights of Mormons, Rastafarians, Santeria and VooDoo adherents to practice their religions.

So then, the real point of believing in basic rights is that they should apply to all equally, not to just to the majority, and this bill should drop the words "Religious Freedom Restoration" from its title and change it to illustrate its real, and far narrower purpose because it does nothing to restore the religious freedom of Mormons, Rastafarians, Santeria and VoDoo adherents in the State.

So from my self-defined pragmatic Liberal Classic point of view, we should either have no laws or laws that treat everyone equally.

That's not the case here.

P.S. There is no real inalienable right to be a baker and bake a cake in a business setting, that is a licensed enterprise. There is also no right to have a caked baked for you but the central argument in this case is that government issued business license and what parameters the government will impose on those people holding that license; the government will have to decide whether or not it will protect the rights of hotel owners to deny room rentals to homosexual, restaurants to deny service to obviously gay couples, etc because the bill does not tailor itself to just weddings, so just like when Bob Jones University had to decide to either admit all blacks to their campus or give up their tax-exempt status, religious individuals owning businesses may have to make choices about their businesses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

Hell... none other than William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia agreed that a religious restoration bill as broad and undefined as this was a mess. I'm surprised that you haven't taken that into consideration.

We live in the world that we live in, not the one we wished that we lived in.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2015, 02:01:35 pm by Luis Gonzalez »
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,346
  • Gender: Male
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #161 on: April 03, 2015, 01:47:03 pm »
We live in the world that we live in, not the one we wished that we lived in.

Good to know.  When they come for my guns, I'll give them up as well, then.


Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #162 on: April 03, 2015, 01:47:07 pm »
Thanks, Lando!  I was coming back to this thread today to compliment everyone on a lively and informative discussion that, IMO, was pretty much polite the entire time!

It's been fascinating to read all the different perspectives on a very thorny issue, and I think, if our minds are open even slightly, that the opportunity was here for all of us to learn and grow.

Happy Easter to all from me as well!

Happy Passover everyone.

You're all welcome to drop by tonight for some home-made Matzo ball soup and pineapple Kugel.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,916
  • Gender: Male
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #163 on: April 03, 2015, 01:47:31 pm »
While it may be true that we're all guilty in this mess, some are waaay more guilty than others.
Big spending lib dims=very very guilty
Big spending RINOs (yes, RINOs)=guilty
True Conservatives=cudos for putting up the good fight but still somewhat guilty
Anyway, that's MHO

The question is, what's it going to take to get out of this mess?

Apparently, according to what I hear, the people on these forums represent only a tiny portion of the voting population.  Those people are quite happy with the way things are going OR couldn't care less.
Doesn't sound like a formula for turning things around.

What you said about "those people" who are happy with thing. I assume you mean LIV's, the largest block of voters who actually determine who are the winners and losers in elections. Together with the DMC (democrat-media complex) they are the problem, in a nutshell.

After two Obama wins I'm coming around to the opinion that free elections are illusory things, because the results of those elections are out of our hands, the people who pay attention. Or, put another way, the best man doesn't necessarily win.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #164 on: April 03, 2015, 01:48:33 pm »
Good to know.  When they come for my guns, I'll give them up as well, then.

So in your world there isn't a lick of difference between the Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms and the right to own a bakery.

Good to know.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #165 on: April 03, 2015, 01:55:24 pm »
What you said about "those people" who are happy with thing. I assume you mean LIV's, the largest block of voters who actually determine who are the winners and losers in elections. Together with the DMC (democrat-media complex) they are the problem, in a nutshell.

After two Obama wins I'm coming around to the opinion that free elections are illusory things, because the results of those elections are out of our hands, the people who pay attention. Or, put another way, the best man doesn't necessarily win.

The original Religious Freedom Restoration laws were championed by liberals and the ACLU, who attacked Scalia and Rehnquist for overturning them (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

So what we're doing here is arguing that going back to a liberal stance on the issue is the conservative thing to do.

People should familiarize themselves with the history of the issue and try to not simply act on emotion.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2015, 01:56:02 pm by Luis Gonzalez »
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #166 on: April 03, 2015, 01:58:37 pm »
I'm surprised too.  I'm surprised the fellow who chided everybody yesterday for not reading the original bill passed in IN was able to tell us the bill passed yesterday is a good one before it was even signed.

I read what adjustments were being proposed, and what I read sounded good.

If those were not in fact the adjustments made, then what I read was wrong and I am guilty of not double checking the report.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,346
  • Gender: Male
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #167 on: April 03, 2015, 02:03:55 pm »
So in your world there isn't a lick of difference between the Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms and the right to own a bakery.

Good to know.

Actually, the founders made the first amendment before the second amendment for a reason.  So in their minds religious freedom was more important than arms.  But property?  That does not show up until the fourth amendment, so I guess I don't regard owning a bakery as the same as bearing arms.  The law in question applies not so much to any baker, but to the religiously-convicted baker.

I think most true libertarians would agree that once the people accept compromises with inalienable rights (I do regard property rights as inalienable, and I suspect you do as well), then the slippery slope argument applies.  "First they came for the Socialists..." and all that.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #168 on: April 03, 2015, 02:05:28 pm »
Actually, the founders made the first amendment before the second amendment for a reason.  So in their minds religious freedom was more important than arms.  But property?  That does not show up until the fourth amendment, so I guess I don't regard owning a bakery as the same as bearing arms.  The law in question applies not so much to any baker, but to the religiously-convicted baker.

I think most true libertarians would agree that once the people accept compromises with inalienable rights (I do regard property rights as inalienable, and I suspect you do as well), then the slippery slope argument applies.  "First they came for the Socialists..." and all that.

I'm still confused.

Where's that constitutionally-protected, inalienable right to be a commercial baker?
« Last Edit: April 03, 2015, 02:05:51 pm by Luis Gonzalez »
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,346
  • Gender: Male
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #169 on: April 03, 2015, 02:11:43 pm »
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html

From the link:

...a private property right includes the right to delegate, rent, or sell any portion of the rights by exchange or gift at whatever price the owner determines (provided someone is willing to pay that price). If I am not allowed to buy some rights from you and you therefore are not allowed to sell rights to me, private property rights are reduced. Thus, the three basic elements of private property are (1) exclusivity of rights to choose the use of a resource, (2) exclusivity of rights to the services of a resource, and (3) rights to exchange the resource at mutually agreeable terms.


Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #170 on: April 03, 2015, 02:12:07 pm »
Actually, the founders made the first amendment before the second amendment for a reason.  So in their minds religious freedom was more important than arms.  But property?  That does not show up until the fourth amendment, so I guess I don't regard owning a bakery as the same as bearing arms.  The law in question applies not so much to any baker, but to the religiously-convicted baker.

I think most true libertarians would agree that once the people accept compromises with inalienable rights (I do regard property rights as inalienable, and I suspect you do as well), then the slippery slope argument applies.  "First they came for the Socialists..." and all that.

So then, in this libertarian "First Amendment trumps all" world, do Muslims have an inalienable right to walk into my deli and demand that I remove pork products from the menu?
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Lando Lincoln

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,537
  • Gender: Male
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #171 on: April 03, 2015, 02:12:42 pm »
Happy Passover everyone.

You're all welcome to drop by tonight for some home-made Matzo ball soup and pineapple Kugel.

Count me in! I will bring a dish of carrot tzimmes.

Happy Passover Luis... And to All.

There are some among us who live in rooms of experience we can never enter.
John Steinbeck

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,346
  • Gender: Male
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #172 on: April 03, 2015, 02:14:36 pm »
So then, in this libertarian "First Amendment trumps all" world, do Muslims have an inalienable right to walk into my deli and demand that I remove pork products from the menu?

I find your pretzel logic fascinating, frankly.  You are a professed libertarian and you don't know the answer to that question?

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #173 on: April 03, 2015, 02:15:42 pm »
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html

From the link:

...a private property right includes the right to delegate, rent, or sell any portion of the rights by exchange or gift at whatever price the owner determines (provided someone is willing to pay that price). If I am not allowed to buy some rights from you and you therefore are not allowed to sell rights to me, private property rights are reduced. Thus, the three basic elements of private property are (1) exclusivity of rights to choose the use of a resource, (2) exclusivity of rights to the services of a resource, and (3) rights to exchange the resource at mutually agreeable terms.

Does that exclusivity include a right to deny the sale based on the buyer's religious beliefs?
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
« Reply #174 on: April 03, 2015, 02:18:23 pm »
I find your pretzel logic fascinating, frankly.  You are a professed libertarian and you don't know the answer to that question?

I noticed that you didn't answer.

One of the out basic flaws of this site and other sites like this, is the propensity for some to insist on defining the political beliefs and labels of others as they relate to their own.

I take the time to post responses where I detail in length what my opinion is, and you highlight and respond to one sentence, totally avoiding the substance of the respone.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2015, 02:29:21 pm by Luis Gonzalez »
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx