Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law

[Bigun]

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

You can do as you please.  That ain't going to happen here as long as I'm breathing.

[Bigun]

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'll answer your question very directly!

They have a right to walk in and demand anything they please.   That doesn't mean that I have to comply and I have the right to tell them to get the hell out of my store!

[massadvj]

Does that exclusivity include a right to deny the sale based on the buyer's religious beliefs?

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 will answer both questions with the same response.  There is no hierarchy of inalienability.  The fact that the founders numbered them is interesting but not relevant, really.  Inalienability comes from God or nature, so there really is no hierarchy.  All inalienable rights are simply that: fixed by nature, and any government attempt to compromise them is immoral.

A person's rights pertain only to him.  They begin and end with the individual.  Rights, by their very nature, do not allow anyone to compromise the rights of another person, so in your example I say absolutely it does include the right of a property owner to deny a sale based on the buyer's religious beliefs.

You very well know this, Luis.  I have read your similar arguments on subjects like immigration and found them compelling.  It appears to some of us you have a blind spot when it comes to the rights of people you don't like (ie, SoCons).

The whole point of recognizing individual rights is so that everyone gets treated equally.  Government compelling equality will never accomplish that goal.  It never has in the history of human civilization, except in the case of what was envisioned by Locke, Jefferson and Madison, which basically endured for a century and a half until it was compromised by people who applied the same logic as you are in this thread.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Does that exclusivity include a right to deny the sale based on the buyer's religious beliefs?

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 will answer both questions with the same response.  There is no hierarchy of inalienability.  The fact that the founders numbered them is interesting but not relevant, really.  Inalienability comes from God or nature, so there really is no hierarchy.  All inalienable rights are simply that: fixed by nature, and any government attempt to compromise them is immoral.

A person's rights pertain only to him.  They begin and end with the individual.  Rights, by their very nature, do not allow anyone to compromise the rights of another person, so in your example I say absolutely it does include the right of a property owner to deny a sale based on the buyer's religious beliefs.

You very well know this, Luis.  I have read your similar arguments on subjects like immigration and found them compelling.  It appears to some of us you have a blind spot when it comes to the rights of people you don't like (ie, SoCons).

The whole point of recognizing individual rights is so that everyone gets treated equally.  Government compelling equality will never accomplish that goal.  It never has in the history of human civilization, except in the case of what was envisioned by Locke, Jefferson and Madison, which basically endured for a century and a half until it was compromised by people who applied the same logic as you are in this thread.

So then, why do you not see the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that you seem to be defending as flawed because it doesn't restore the religious rights of all?

[musiclady]

Does that exclusivity include a right to deny the sale based on the buyer's religious beliefs?

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 will answer both questions with the same response.  There is no hierarchy of inalienability.  The fact that the founders numbered them is interesting but not relevant, really.  Inalienability comes from God or nature, so there really is no hierarchy.  All inalienable rights are simply that: fixed by nature, and any government attempt to compromise them is immoral.

A person's rights pertain only to him.  They begin and end with the individual.  Rights, by their very nature, do not allow anyone to compromise the rights of another person, so in your example I say absolutely it does include the right of a property owner to deny a sale based on the buyer's religious beliefs.

You very well know this, Luis.  I have read your similar arguments on subjects like immigration and found them compelling.  It appears to some of us you have a blind spot when it comes to the rights of people you don't like (ie, SoCons).

The whole point of recognizing individual rights is so that everyone gets treated equally.  Government compelling equality will never accomplish that goal.  It never has in the history of human civilization, except in the case of what was envisioned by Locke, Jefferson and Madison, which basically endured for a century and a half until it was compromised by people who applied the same logic as you are in this thread.

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

And by the way Victor, you're right in thinking that I don't particilarly "like" SoCons, but I have no animus toward religion or religious people.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of basing secular laws on religious beliefs.

[massadvj]

So then, why do you not see the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that you seem to be defending as flawed because it doesn't restore the religious rights of all?

I don't support the law because it "restores religious rights" so much as I support it because it is a step toward affirming property rights.  If I had my way, I'd get rid of any law that restricted a business owner from denying service to anyone he wanted for any reason except race (I do like the 14th amendment in spite of the fact that it has been used to justify massive government overreach).

The law is a step in the right direction.  Would I like it to be more?  Certainly. 

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't support the law because it "restores religious rights" so much as I support it because it is a step toward affirming property rights.  If I had my way, I'd get rid of any law that restricted a business owner from denying service to anyone he wanted for any reason except race (I do like the 14th amendment in spite of the fact that it has been used to justify massive government overreach).

The law is a step in the right direction.  Would I like it to be more?  Certainly.

I agree with pretty much all of that.  I think it would be a good idea to review the 14th Amendment, because it's been used to create a lot of harm to states' rights. 

[evadR]

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.

ABSOLUTELY

[evadR]

"either have no laws or have all laws applied equally"..or something like that.

hmmmm....IF that were the case, we would never have had affirmative action laws...would we?

[Luis Gonzalez]

I don't support the law because it "restores religious rights" so much as I support it because it is a step toward affirming property rights.  If I had my way, I'd get rid of any law that restricted a business owner from denying service to anyone he wanted for any reason except race (I do like the 14th amendment in spite of the fact that it has been used to justify massive government overreach).

The law is a step in the right direction.  Would I like it to be more?  Certainly.

See, we're all willing to create exemptions to the greater ideological truisms we hold dear. Blacks can't help being black anymore than old people can help being old and women can help being women, but you seem willing to discriminate based on age and gender, but not based on race.

Here's a thought.

As Scalia and Rehnquist argued in Smith statutes as broad as Indiana's conceivably create de facto exemptions to all anti discrimination laws and statutes since there is no carve out in the law which supports the State's anti-discrimination laws, and since individuals do not have to seek the State's approval of their religious beliefs, or even justify them, anyone can refuse to render any service to anyone else and claim an exemption from anti discrimination laws based upon this statute.

Muslims don't have to sell anything to Christians and Christians don't have to sell anything to Muslims, so religious people can actually be discriminated against based on this law.

It may also be the case that atheists can refuse service to anyone they believe is a Christian. I don't know, but it seems logical.

I like Cyber Liberty's idea that a bakery could actually decide not to bake any wedding cakes for anyone, and I also like the thought that was floated yesterday in Indiana that no one could be compelled to physically participate in any event or rite that would be contrary to their religious values, meaning that photographers would not be forced to attend a same-sex wedding ceremony, and that a wedding chapel would not be forced to rent their space to a same sex couple if their belief systems were opposed to doing such things. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

"either have no laws or have all laws applied equally"..or something like that.

hmmmm....IF that were the case, we would never have had affirmative action laws...would we?

Yep

[Cyber Liberty]

"either have no laws or have all laws applied equally"..or something like that.

hmmmm....IF that were the case, we would never have had affirmative action laws...would we?

I think "Affirmative Action" laws have caused about as much damage as laws can, because they pit people against each other, and it's by design.  As clear an example of distribution of "spoils" as there ever was.  If it can be agree some remedy is necessary for some historic and harmful discrimination, then it must be as little as possible, serves a compelling interest and sunsetted.

[Luis Gonzalez]

See, we're all willing to create exemptions to the greater ideological truisms we hold dear. Blacks can't help being black anymore than old people can help being old and women can help being women, but you seem willing to discriminate based on age and gender, but not based on race.

Here's a thought.

As Scalia and Rehnquist argued in Smith statutes as broad as Indiana's conceivably create de facto exemptions to all anti discrimination laws and statutes since there is no carve out in the law which supports the State's anti-discrimination laws, and since individuals do not have to seek the State's approval of their religious beliefs, or even justify them, anyone can refuse to render any service to anyone else and claim an exemption from anti discrimination laws based upon this statute.

Muslims don't have to sell anything to Christians and Christians don't have to sell anything to Muslims, so religious people can actually be discriminated against based on this law.

It may also be the case that atheists can refuse service to anyone they believe is a Christian. I don't know, but it seems logical.

I like Cyber Liberty's idea that a bakery could actually decide not to bake any wedding cakes for anyone, and I also like the thought that was floated yesterday in Indiana that no one could be compelled to physically participate in any event or rite that would be contrary to their religious values, meaning that photographers would not be forced to attend a same-sex wedding ceremony, and that a wedding chapel would not be forced to rent their space to a same sex couple if their belief systems were opposed to doing such things.

Would I like to see that happen?

Yes... so long as ALL anti discrimination laws and Statues are overturned at both the Federal and State level are overturned.

But there isn't a chance in Hell that would actually ever happen.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I think "Affirmative Action" laws have caused about as much damage as laws can, because they pit people against each other, and it's by design.  As clear an example of distribution of "spoils" as there ever was.  If it can be agree some remedy is necessary for some historic and harmful discrimination, then it must be as little as possible, serves a compelling interest and sunsetted.

Some of my own personal historic and harmful discrimination has recently been remedied.

I am no longer Hispanic (thanks to George Zimmerman) and I am now back to being white.

[Cyber Liberty]

I like Cyber Liberty's idea that a bakery could actually decide not to bake any wedding cakes for anyone, and I also like the thought that was floated yesterday in Indiana that no one could be compelled to physically participate in any event or rite that would be contrary to their religious values, meaning that photographers would not be forced to attend a same-sex wedding ceremony, and that a wedding chapel would not be forced to rent their space to a same sex couple if their belief systems were opposed to doing such things.

Thanks, Luis!  I do have a question to clarify that a bit, the part about participation.  A baker of cakes certainly does not participate at a level as intimate as a photographer (a wedding photographer is almost as central to the wedding as the minister).  Can the case be made that if the baker does not deliver the cake, or if his participation is limited to just that, the baker would not be covered under a "participation clause?"

Are we getting into the rough, and trying to decide how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin? (How's that for mashing up a couple of metaphors?) 

[Cyber Liberty]

Some of my own personal historic and harmful discrimination has recently been remedied.

I am no longer Hispanic (thanks to George Zimmerman) and I am now back to being white.

Cool!  Now can we get back to the business of blaming all the troubles in the world on you?   

[Luis Gonzalez]

Thanks, Luis!  I do have a question to clarify that a bit, the part about participation.  A baker of cakes certainly does not participate at a level as intimate as a photographer (a wedding photographer is almost as central to the wedding as the minister).  Can the case be made that if the baker does not deliver the cake, or if his participation is limited to just that, the baker would not be covered under a "participation clause?"

Are we getting into the rough, and trying to decide how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin? (How's that for mashing up a couple of metaphors?)

There is also the reality that in most commercial bakeries the actual owner is not the individual either baking the cake or delivering it.

Here's something else.

If I am employed by a commercial baker, and I'm the guy that actually bakes his wedding cakes, can I be fired by my employer for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Cool!  Now can we get back to the business of blaming all the troubles in the world on you?   

Hey... my white privilege suffered through a 40-year suspension thanks To Richard Nixon.

I want some sort of a exemption for that.

[evadR]

LOL...Back to being white.
That little temporary distinction has served its purpose.
You're back to being Hispanic, and better off for it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Thanks, Luis!  I do have a question to clarify that a bit, the part about participation.  A baker of cakes certainly does not participate at a level as intimate as a photographer (a wedding photographer is almost as central to the wedding as the minister).  Can the case be made that if the baker does not deliver the cake, or if his participation is limited to just that, the baker would not be covered under a "participation clause?"

Are we getting into the rough, and trying to decide how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin? (How's that for mashing up a couple of metaphors?)

Here's something else.

A guy walks into a Christian-owned bakery and orders a large cake that says "Congratulations Neil and Bob" (yes... that's intentional). The baker looks up and says "What's the occasion" and the guy says "none of your business, I just want a cake".

Now what?

[evadR]

Hey... my white privilege suffered through a 40-year suspension thanks To Richard Nixon.

I want some sort of a exemption for that.

You asked.......

Ring, ring, ring
"HELLO"
voice at the other end: Luis, we had an exemption for you
Luis: Great, I'll come get it.
Voice: No, you don't understand.  We HAD an exemption but you did so well on your own, we tore it up.

Luis: Shux.  There is no justice.

[evadR]

What I don't know won't hurt me.

Bake the cake.

[Cyber Liberty]

Hey... my white privilege suffered through a 40-year suspension thanks To Richard Nixon.

I want some sort of a exemption for that.

The check's in the mail!  And...Happy Holidays (whichever are the ones you observe)!

[Luis Gonzalez]

The check's in the mail!  And...Happy Holidays (whichever are the ones you observe)!

We do both.

We are both.