-
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/237471-pence-calls-for-immediate-fix-to-controversial-law (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/237471-pence-calls-for-immediate-fix-to-controversial-law)
March 31, 2015, 11:36 am
Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
By Ben Kamisar
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) on Tuesday backed away from his support for a religious freedom law and asked his state Legislature to immediately change it to ensure it would not discriminate against gays and lesbians.
Pence, who signed the bill into law last week, insisted it was not intended to allow businesses to discriminate against gay people.
But in the face of a growing firestorm and economic boycotts of his state, he argued state lawmakers should act immediately to quell concerns over the measure.
“It would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone,” Pence said at a press conference Tuesday morning.
“We want to make it clear that Indiana is open for business, we want to make it clear that Hoosier hospitality is not a slogan, its our way of life.”
Pence, who has been seen as a potential GOP presidential candidate, blamed the media and critics of his law for much of the controversy.
He said he believes the law “does not give anyone a license to deny services to gay and lesbian couples,” and that the law had been mischaracterized.
“The proper legislative remedy is to focus on the perception that has been created by the misunderstanding,” he said. “This was grossly mischaracterized by advocates who opposed the bill and frankly sloppy reporting.”
Pence previously had defended the law as a necessary way to ward off government intrusion into personal religious beliefs. The governor had also noted that a version of the law is on the books in dozens of states.
-
PFFFT!
-
I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THIS SHIT!!!!!!!
-
I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THIS SHIT!!!!!!!
I suppose the concept of not doing business with somebody that first rejected you....is a a foreign one.
What idiot would force a baker to produce a cake...edible treat...for a group that he/she abhors and believes sinful?
THAT'S the sh*t I'm tired of.... :laugh:
-
Y TU GOVERNOR PENCE? Y TU?
-
Saul Alinsky is beaming somewhere.
-
So he caved and gave the enemy an unearned victory. Good yob, Governor Pence.
-
I suppose the concept of not doing business with somebody that first rejected you....is a a foreign one.
What idiot would force a baker to produce a cake...edible treat...for a group that he/she abhors and believes sinful?
THAT'S the sh*t I'm tired of.... :laugh:
:amen:
-
And the gay lobby is now more emboldened than ever. Look for them to begin organizing campaigns against the other 19 states that have such laws and even the federal government.
Gay marriage will never enjoy equal support of traditional marriage and, I'm convinced, this just gnaws at the guts of the fanatics. They can't stand it.
So, look for the pressure to grow EVEN MORE after gay marriage is recognized by the Supreme Court to force every entity in this country to recognize and support gay marriage or be shut down.
Churches, you're in the crosshairs.
-
Score one (MORE) for the Gay Gestapo.
-
Y TU GOVERNOR PENCE? Y TU?
Weakness is the name of the game.
We can't win this war with such weak-kneed 'leaders.'
-
Dare I say it?
Mike Pence (who I previously thought was a fantastic conservative governor), in this episode anyway, appears to display behavior somewhat reminiscent of a rhinoceros. Hmm. :pondering:
-
Pence previously had defended the law as a necessary way to ward off government intrusion into personal religious beliefs. The governor had also noted that a version of the law is on the books in dozens of states.
You're looking at it wrong.
This is the first step toward getting those laws removed in dozens of states...
-
And the gay lobby is now more emboldened than ever. Look for them to begin organizing campaigns against the other 19 states that have such laws and even the federal government.
Gay marriage will never enjoy equal support of traditional marriage and, I'm convinced, this just gnaws at the guts of the fanatics. They can't stand it.
So, look for the pressure to grow EVEN MORE after gay marriage is recognized by the Supreme Court to force every entity in this country to recognize and support gay marriage or be shut down.
Churches, you're in the crosshairs.
Agreed. They said, No More!, and drew the line in Indiana. They didn't give a hoot the Indiana law was modeled after others. So, by capitulating, Pence gave the LGBT crowd (and any other crowd) the impetus they need for future "outrage". Pence validated their platform. Contrast that to how Walker never blinked in Wisconsin when the unionistas and leftists damn near burned down Madison. Walker's stand propelled him onto the national stage. Pence should have stood firm and said, "Go to hell".
Mike Pence is now a footnote Governor.
-
I guess I can insist on bacon being served at any Mideast delicatessen or café anywhere in Indiana. Right?
-
So he caved and gave the enemy an unearned victory. Good yob, Governor Pence.
Like caving will do him any good. Stand by your principals and WIN. Showed his true RINO colors of CAVING.
He fooled some of the people some of the time that he was a conservative w principals BUT cannot fool all the people all the time. THIS will KILL him except for the RINOGOP and they are going down Fast. **nononono*
-
You're looking at it wrong.
This is the first step toward getting those laws removed in dozens of states...
Good Point and they will start in IL up the street. They have the exact same law?????
-
I guess I can insist on bacon being served at any Mideast delicatessen or café anywhere in Indiana. Right?
Not the best analogy.
If bacon is not on my menu, you can't demand that I serve it to you. It's not on the menu and the reason there is a menu is to detail the things I serve in my restaurant. It's a restaurant, not a cornucopia.
However, if bacon IS on my menu and I won't serve it to you because I don't serve bacon to elderly white Christian men, I'm breaking all kinds of laws.
-
Not the best analogy.
If bacon is not on my menu, you can't demand that I serve it to you. It's not on the menu and the reason there is a menu is to detail the things I serve in my restaurant. It's a restaurant, not a cornucopia.
However, if bacon IS on my menu and I won't serve it to you because I don't serve bacon to elderly white Christian men, I'm breaking all kinds of laws.
I know - it is a very weak analogy. But, I am aggrieved, dammit!!! Where can I get recourse, restitution? Okay, I'll stop now.
Hey wait... what did you mean by this ...elderly white Christian men???
-
It is FALSE to claim the Indiana measure is the same as the federal and other states' measures.
The Indiana measure goes further to justify and make it legal to discriminate against gays.
It was an incredibly stupid, unforced political play, and it will have negative results.
The biggest political segment is independent. They support the GOP on economic issues, and they support the democrats on social issues. IOW this measure reinforces that the GOP is the party of religious bigots.
I have always liked Pence, and my guess is he was NOT informed that the Indiana law was substantially different. Hence his quick decision, to repair the damage caused by his own party. It was either intentional, or careless.
-
It is FALSE to claim the Indiana measure is the same as the federal and other states' measures.
The Indiana measure goes further to justify and make it legal to discriminate against gays.
It was an incredibly stupid, unforced political play, and it will have negative results.
The biggest political segment is independent. They support the GOP on economic issues, and they support the democrats on social issues. IOW this measure reinforces that the GOP is the party of religious bigots.
I have always liked Pence, and my guess is he was NOT informed that the Indiana law was substantially different. Hence his quick decision, to repair the damage caused by his own party. It was either intentional, or careless.
I only know what I have read in reports and commentary. As such, I have not read the actual bill as signed nor have I compared it to others presumably used as models. That means, obviously, I could be drawing some conclusions that are wrong. However, Pence has dropped it in the dirt here. His standing may never recover. This is a political nightmare for him and it splashes all over Republicans in general. It emboldens the other guys and gives the media endless opportunities for breathless exhortations. What a mess.
-
I only know what I have read in reports and commentary. As such, I have not read the actual bill as signed nor have I compared it to others presumably used as models. That means, obviously, I could be drawing some conclusions that are wrong. However, Pence has dropped it in the dirt here. His standing may never recover. This is a political nightmare for him and it splashes all over Republicans in general. It emboldens the other guys and gives the media endless opportunities for breathless exhortations. What a mess.
I can live with his stepping on his own wanger, but he stepped on all of ours by caving. (I don't agree the IN law went further than other laws, BTW.) The job of protecting our rights just got a lot more difficult. He should have stuck to his guns, as Walker did standing up to the unions. As a result, Walker has a good chance of being President, and Pence's chances just dropped to about zero.
-
Why do social conservatives get tarred for their religious belief in traditional morality and the left escapes criticism for their religious belief in state liberalism?
Which belief system enslaves people and which liberates them?
-
It is FALSE to claim the Indiana measure is the same as the federal and other states' measures.
The Indiana measure goes further to justify and make it legal to discriminate against gays.
It was an incredibly stupid, unforced political play, and it will have negative results.
The biggest political segment is independent. They support the GOP on economic issues, and they support the democrats on social issues. IOW this measure reinforces that the GOP is the party of religious bigots.
I have always liked Pence, and my guess is he was NOT informed that the Indiana law was substantially different. Hence his quick decision, to repair the damage caused by his own party. It was either intentional, or careless.
I'm suggesting careless, as in poorly written, and pandering to a block of prospective voters.
From the Indy Star: Editorial: Gov. Pence, fix 'religious freedom' law now (http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2015/03/30/editorial-gov-pence-fix-religious-freedom-law-now/70698802/)
... Only bold action — action that sends an unmistakable message to the world that our state will not tolerate discrimination against any of its citizens — will be enough to reverse the damage.
Gov. Mike Pence and the General Assembly need to enact a state law to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, education and public accommodations on the basis of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.
Those protections and RFRA can co-exist. They do elsewhere.
Laws protecting sexual orientation and gender identity are not foreign to Indiana.
Indianapolis, for example, has had those legal protections in place for nearly a decade. Indy's law applies to businesses with more than six employees, and exempts religious organizations and nonprofit groups.
The city's human rights ordinance provides strong legal protection — and peace of mind —for LGBT citizens; yet, it has not placed an undue burden on businesses ...
-
I can live with his stepping on his own wanger, but he stepped on all of ours by caving. (I don't agree the IN law went further than other laws, BTW.) The job of protecting our rights just got a lot more difficult. He should have stuck to his guns, as Walker did standing up to the unions. As a result, Walker has a good chance of being President, and Pence's chances just dropped to about zero.
I don't know about that. I haven't read all the other laws, but this one is very broad, allowing for a whole lot of elbow room when it comes as to what constitutes a "substantial burden" on someone's free exercise of their religious beliefs.
The law asserts that the government can't "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" and that individuals who feel like their religious beliefs have been or could be "substantially burdened" can lean on this law to fend off lawsuits.
So, I can refuse to rent my house to a gay couple, or a Muslim, or a Jew and claim that doing those things constitutes a "substantial burden" on my religious beliefs.
Could you also demand that your employer fire or relocate the gay people in your office because their being there may prove to exert a "substantial burden" on your religious beliefs?
The way to protected class for gays is through these kinds of laws.
They're not so much winning this battle as the religious community is self-immolating.
-
Mike Pence = R-I-N-O
(and I don't care what anyone thinks about the use of that term!)
-
Mike Pence = R-I-N-O
(and I don't care what anyone thinks about the use of that term!)
Actually, R-I-N-O isn't the dirty word the forum software should be scrubbing. It's S-O-C-O-N.
-
Actually, R-I-N-O isn't the dirty word the forum software should be scrubbing. It's S-O-C-O-N.
Remember Lawrence v Texas?
Here's how that went down.
In Texas, sodomy used to be illegal, but one day the Texas legislature came to grips with the fact that they LIKED sodomy and made it legal... for themselves. They "fine tuned" the sodomy statutes and targeted a sub-segment of the population that they didn't "like" and whose lifestyle they didn't approve of, keeping it illegal for them.
That sub-segment challenged the law in Court and won. The SCOTUS acted by overturning all anti-homosexual sodomy laws in the US by virtue of their finding.
This law and other laws like this may very well accomplish the same thing because, just like the Texas statutes, is targeted at a sub-segment of the population that is in fact a minority in that population; our system of government is designed to protect the individuals and the minorities from the whims of an omnipotent majority, and in doing so, protecting all of us from the whims and animus of the voters.
Some people argue that business owners have the inherent right to refuse service. Someone in this forum mentioned "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rules, and I agree with that, but if that "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rule is changed to "no shirt, no shoes, no service to Chinese people" then the rule becomes discriminatory in nature.
This Illinois law specifically targets homosexuals. That is blatantly obvious.
If you ask me, business owners should be able to deny service to anyone, for any reason or no reason, at any time, then let the free market judge whether or not that's a good way to conduct business. That however is not the world we live in.
That's the fantasy libertarian world that I'd like to live in.
-
Mike Pence = R-I-N-O
(and I don't care what anyone thinks about the use of that term!)
DITTO, the truth sometimes hurt. :amen:
-
Mike Pence = R-I-N-O
(and I don't care what anyone thinks about the use of that term!)
It's interesting that the more liberal members of the forum follow in the true liberal tradition of arguing over terms rather than substance...
-
If you ask me, business owners should be able to deny service to anyone, for any reason or no reason, at any time, then let the free market judge whether or not that's a good way to conduct business. That however is not the world we live in.
That's the fantasy libertarian world that I'd like to live in.
The hope of getting to that world was destroyed with the Civil Rights Act. Look at this argument going on. A behavior is now a civil right, on the same par as skin color. I wonder if that was the intent back in the 60's?
I think the end result of what we're seeing today will be the state simply getting out of the business of marriage, which would be good (Shouldn't be in the first place), and the final destruction of the right of association, which would be a very bad thing.
If the state can tell you whom you must serve, it can also tell you whom you can't. We're starting to see that in action, with "Operation Choke Point," where banks are being pressured by regulators to cease doing business with gun dealers.
-
The hope of getting to that world was destroyed with the Civil Rights Act. Look at this argument going on. A behavior is now a civil right, on the same par as skin color. I wonder if that was the intent back in the 60's?
I think the end result of what we're seeing today will be the state simply getting out of the business of marriage, which would be good (Shouldn't be in the first place), and the final destruction of the right of association, which would be a very bad thing.
If the state can tell you whom you must serve, it can also tell you whom you can't. We're starting to see that in action, with "Operation Choke Point," where banks are being pressured by regulators to cease doing business with gun dealers.
If you want to make the argument that homosexuality is a behavior, then you have to also agree that Christianity is a behavior since it is a choice, not an inherent trait.
On the subject of the government being in the business of marriage, you can blame the Protestants.
“Marriage is a civic matter. It is really not, together with all its circumstances, the business of the church.” - Martin Luther
-
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150401/us-religious-objections-26dff39a1b.html
Arkansas governor urges changes to religious objection bill
Apr 1, 11:58 AM (ET)
By ANDREW DEMILLO
(AP) Demonstrators attend a rally on the steps of the Arkansas state Capitol in Little...
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson on Wednesday called for changes to a religious objection measure facing a backlash from businesses and gay rights groups, saying it wasn't intended to sanction discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The Republican governor said he wants changes to the bill lawmakers sent him prohibiting state and local government from infringing upon someone's religious beliefs without a compelling interest. Hutchinson said he wants the Legislature to either recall the bill or pass a follow-up measure to make the proposal more closely mirror a 1993 federal religious freedom law.
Hutchinson had initially supported the bill and on Tuesday his office had said he planned to sign it into law.
The move comes after Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a similar measure into law last week. Pence this week said he wants follow-up legislation to address concerns that the law allows businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Similar proposals have been introduced in more than a dozen states, patterned after the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Nineteen other states have similar laws on the books.
Echoing the reaction to Indiana's law, Hutchinson has faced pressure from the state's top employers, including retail giant Wal-Mart, which complained that the measure was discriminatory and would stifle economic development. Little Rock's mayor, the city's Chamber of Commerce and Arkansas-based data services company Acxiom all urged the governor to reject the measure in recent days.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights group, has run ads in Silicon Valley targeting technology firms Hutchinson hopes to attract to the state.
----------------------------------
The proponents of these measures apparently lied, claiming they were identical to the 1993 bill, but now we learn that is false.
-
If you want to make the argument that homosexuality is a behavior, then you have to also agree that Christianity is a behavior since it is a choice, not an inherent trait.
OK, I agree with that. It's a behavior which practice is secured in the First Amendment, but it certainly is a matter of choice, no doubt about it. I don't know of anybody who has "Catholic blood." One certainly can't tell somebody's religion by just looking at them. Besides, the firmest believer will tell you God gave us free will.
On the subject of the government being in the business of marriage, you can blame the Protestants.
“Marriage is a civic matter. It is really not, together with all its circumstances, the business of the church.” - Martin Luther
I don't agree with his contention. To say it's not the business of the church makes no sense to me. Marriage is a religious matter, and the state should stick to creating and enforcing contracts, which is what a marriage really is, in practical terms. License Civil Unions, not Marriages. I believe OK is entertaining a bill to remove the state from licensing marriages entirely. This is the direction things are bound to go. If I were a staunchly Christian baker, I'd stop making all wedding cakes to be free of the risk of being forced to commit a mortal sin by making a cake for a gay couple.
(If I, Cyber Liberty, were a baker I'd make the cakes, for everybody. But that's just me, and I know there are people who feel a lot differently.)
-
It's how Israel does it.
Marriage is purely the preserve of religion. The State's only involvement is in the civil contract itself.
-
On the subject of the government being in the business of marriage, you can blame the Protestants.
“Marriage is a civic matter. It is really not, together with all its circumstances, the business of the church.” - Martin Luther
So can we now start blaming all Catholics for things based on the quotes of any Pope?
-
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150401/us-religious-objections-26dff39a1b.html
Arkansas governor urges changes to religious objection bill
Apr 1, 11:58 AM (ET)
By ANDREW DEMILLO
(AP) Demonstrators attend a rally on the steps of the Arkansas state Capitol in Little...
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson on Wednesday called for changes to a religious objection measure facing a backlash from businesses and gay rights groups, saying it wasn't intended to sanction discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The Republican governor said he wants changes to the bill lawmakers sent him prohibiting state and local government from infringing upon someone's religious beliefs without a compelling interest. Hutchinson said he wants the Legislature to either recall the bill or pass a follow-up measure to make the proposal more closely mirror a 1993 federal religious freedom law.
Hutchinson had initially supported the bill and on Tuesday his office had said he planned to sign it into law.
The move comes after Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a similar measure into law last week. Pence this week said he wants follow-up legislation to address concerns that the law allows businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Similar proposals have been introduced in more than a dozen states, patterned after the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Nineteen other states have similar laws on the books.
Echoing the reaction to Indiana's law, Hutchinson has faced pressure from the state's top employers, including retail giant Wal-Mart, which complained that the measure was discriminatory and would stifle economic development. Little Rock's mayor, the city's Chamber of Commerce and Arkansas-based data services company Acxiom all urged the governor to reject the measure in recent days.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights group, has run ads in Silicon Valley targeting technology firms Hutchinson hopes to attract to the state.
----------------------------------
The proponents of these measures apparently lied, claiming they were identical to the 1993 bill, but now we learn that is false.
IIRC SCOTUS overturned that law.
-
OK, I agree with that. It's a behavior which practice is secured in the First Amendment, but it certainly is a matter of choice, no doubt about it. I don't know of anybody who has "Catholic blood." One certainly can't tell somebody's religion by just looking at them. Besides, the firmest believer will tell you God gave us free will.
I don't agree with his contention. To say it's not the business of the church makes no sense to me. Marriage is a religious matter, and the state should stick to creating and enforcing contracts, which is what a marriage really is, in practical terms. License Civil Unions, not Marriages. I believe OK is entertaining a bill to remove the state from licensing marriages entirely. This is the direction things are bound to go. If I were a staunchly Christian baker, I'd stop making all wedding cakes to be free of the risk of being forced to commit a mortal sin by making a cake for a gay couple.
(If I, Cyber Liberty, were a baker I'd make the cakes, for everybody. But that's just me, and I know there are people who feel a lot differently.)
If you were a staunchly Catholic baker, would you refuse to bake wedding cakes for people's third and fourth weddings or weddings ceremonies not performed by a priest in a Church?
-
On the subject of the government being in the business of marriage, you can blame the Protestants.
“Marriage is a civic matter. It is really not, together with all its circumstances, the business of the church.” - Martin Luther
Martin Luther also said that women were not intelligent enough to learn to read.
Hardly our 'go to guy' on all matters, Luis.... **nononono*
-
It's how Israel does it.
Marriage is purely the preserve of religion. The State's only involvement is in the civil contract itself.
Exactly. A point I was about to make. The matter of children, property, inheritance, taxes, all the legal interactions and social ramifications that come with being part of the modern tribe.
-
So can we now start blaming all Catholics for things based on the quotes of any Pope?
I thought we were already doing that? :chairbang:
-
If you were a staunchly Catholic baker, would you refuse to bake wedding cakes for people's third and fourth weddings or weddings ceremonies not performed by a priest in a Church?
Yup. You betcha. Mortal sin right there. AFAIK, that is already the case. I've heard nuns talking to my wife (born and raised Catholic), and you bet they'd refuse to make that cake. But, the people affected in your scenario don't have a powerful lobby behind them like the Lavender Mafia.
-
As I Said on a earlier post on this subject
start targeting liberal / gay owned bakeries ,florists ,caterers etc
and demand that they bake something like this
(http://www.sott.net/image/s4/99946/full/racistcake2.jpg) or this (http://www.thelocal.fr/userdata/images/article/w468/06be629e93433bd6f1eaa891e4e8cb0cde9d5980f425879c88ad73c15a009be8.jpg)or similar type cakes
demand that they cater a Nazi or KKK themed party, minstrel show or something like that(https://ioneglobalgrind.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/6b0f1f783f1011e3bcf322000aaa033b_8.jpg?w=960&h=960)
when the don't comply sue them under the same public service laws...if the state rules against you
then bring a lawsuit against the state for not equally enforcing the law
Again Use their own laws against them .Go to a liberal bakery and demand a Martan Luther Coon cake or a happy Holocaust cake etc
find the personal info and addresses of the gay rights activists and ACLU lawyers ,picket their homes,hand out flyers outside their kids school and their neighborhoods with their pictures and addresses of the actvists and ACLU denouncing them as anti Christian Bigots round the clock phone calls and nasty emails ..all the same tactics used on the proposition 8 folks ..HARASS THE HELL OUT OF THEM
-
Martin Luther also said that women were not intelligent enough to learn to read.
Hardly our 'go to guy' on all matters, Luis.... **nononono*
But he is the guy who began the process of turning marriage from a sacrament to a civil entity.
In other words, Martin Luther is the guy standing at the top of the slide in that "slippery slope" that everyone talks about when it comes to the degradation of the sacrament of marriage.
-
As I Said on a earlier post on this subject
Again Use their own laws against them .Go to a liberal bakery and demand a Martan Luther Coon cake or a happy Holocaust cake etc
find the personal info and addresses of the gay rights activists and ACLU lawyers ,picket their homes,hand out flyers outside their kids school and their neighborhoods with their pictures and addresses of the actvists and ACLU denouncing them as anti Christian Bigots round the clock phone calls and nasty emails ..all the same tactics used on the proposition 8 folks ..HARASS THE HELL OUT OF THEM
Have at it Charles.
-
Again Use their own laws against them .Go to a liberal bakery and demand a Martan Luther Coon cake or a happy Holocaust cake etc
find the personal info and addresses of the gay rights activists and ACLU lawyers ,picket their homes,hand out flyers outside their kids school and their neighborhoods with their pictures and addresses of the actvists and ACLU denouncing them as anti Christian Bigots round the clock phone calls and nasty emails ..all the same tactics used on the proposition 8 folks ..HARASS THE HELL OUT OF THEM
Yep, and the cake I sell them for their 'special day' might not taste very good either... :whistle:
-
But he is the guy who began the process of turning marriage from a sacrament to a civil entity.
In other words, Martin Luther is the guy standing at the top of the slide in that "slippery slope" that everyone talks about when it comes to the degradation of the sacrament of marriage.
Using that logic, the Pope's recent comments about seeking a 'new balance' on gay marriage, abortion and contraception means that he stands at the top of that slippery slope... :chairbang:
-
But he is the guy who began the process of turning marriage from a sacrament to a civil entity.
In other words, Martin Luther is the guy standing at the top of the slide in that "slippery slope" that everyone talks about when it comes to the degradation of the sacrament of marriage.
I don't think Bastiat would have liked Martin Luther....
-
It's interesting that the more liberal members of the forum follow in the true liberal tradition of arguing over terms rather than substance...
You don't 'see' Fisherman as a staunch social conservative, but rather a "more liberal member"?
-
Using that logic, the Pope's recent comments about seeking a 'new balance' on gay marriage, abortion and contraception means that he stands at the top of that slippery slope... :chairbang:
I have you on ignore for a good reason but unfortunately I looked in on the thread without signing in to the site and there you were.
Your posts make no sense, and this one is no exception.
It was Martin Luther who began the process of giving to the State what had always belonged to God, and once that was done, once Luther's idea that marriage was not a sacrament but rather something that belonged to the State, then the power to define, or redefine what marriage was and is was transferred to the State, and the matter of what constituted a "marriage" became subject to whichever political winds prevailed at any time instead of dogma.
In essence, Luther (and later John Calvin) managed to take God out of marriage, and once that happened government was able to do with marriage whatsoever it so desired. In the hands of government marriage soon became dissoluble. No-fault divorce and remarriage became the law of the land. Then with marriage no longer being a permanent union, children became disposable objects, which opened up the door to the redefinition of the procreative act in marriage. Contraception and abortion became legal. The sexual revolution was in full swing. Then once children and conjugal acts between man and woman were no longer thought as being connected to marriage, marriage was then redefined as something other than one man and one woman.
I have a lot of issues with this Pope, but there was only one individual standing at the top of that slide pushing marriage down that slippery slope.
Martin Luther.
-
I don't think Bastiat would have liked Martin Luther....
Martin Luther was the Alpha from whence all religious collectivists descended from.
-
I have you on ignore for a good reason but unfortunately I looked in on the thread without signing in to the site and there you were.
Your posts make no sense, and this one is no exception.
It's good that you started out with a personal attack. I find that almost always makes anything that follows carry more weight with my intended audience. /s
-
It's good that you started out with a personal attack. I find that almost always makes anything that follows carry more weight with my intended audience. /s
He makes no sense and your selective vision gives you no credibility.
Here's the first of Dan's post that caught my eye.
It's interesting that the more liberal members of the forum follow in the true liberal tradition of arguing over terms rather than substance.
Since you add nothing to most discussions, like Dan adds nothing,you'll go on the dustbin of ignore as well.
-
Cyber Liberty wrote:
[[ Actually, R-I-N-O isn't the dirty word the forum software should be scrubbing. It's S-O-C-O-N. ]]
Kudos and applause to you!
Is it really, really necessary to introduce into this forum the same kind of censorship that has become de riguer over at "that other place"....?
I believe in free speech. In my impetulant youth, I remember signing a petition in Westport (CT) to get the communist party on the ballot. I think I got investigated by the FBI for that one. That was about 43 years ago or so.
I've wised up a bit since then, but not insofar as speech is concerned.
If the black muslims want to chant, "Black Power", that's fine with me.
If the white supremecists want to respond, "White Power", well, that's fine with me, too.
If you want to call me names, such as "bigot", "racis'", "sexist", "homophobe", "xenophobe", "intolerant", "judgmental" and "discriminatory", well .... go right ahead! I'll nod to every one.
Do so if you wish, but if you do, better be ready for me to call YOU some names in return.
As far as politics goes, I -like it- "down and dirty". Save the politeness and gentlemanly behavior for somewhere else. Back around the time of the Civil War (or was it shortly afterwards), there were some instances of physical assaults by one Congressman on another. Fine with me. I WANT to be represented by guys (no women, thank you very much) who will FIGHT for what they believe in!
How much "fight" are we seeing from the entire Republican party, lately ????
-
He makes no sense and your selective vision gives you no credibility.
Here's the first of Dan's post that caught my eye.
It's interesting that the more liberal members of the forum follow in the true liberal tradition of arguing over terms rather than substance.
Since you add nothing to most discussions, like Dan adds nothing,you'll go on the dustbin of ignore as well.
I'm heartbroken.
At least when I'm not contributing, I make it short. You are a typical liberal, verbose, venomous and vacuous.
Poor Luis.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wu5Ru9WTuB4/VRAX_zlBh3I/AAAAAAAAEcY/Hr3VVpoGLqQ/s1600/_______%2BNY%2B2014.gif)
-
He makes no sense and your selective vision gives you no credibility.
Here's the first of Dan's post that caught my eye.
It's interesting that the more liberal members of the forum follow in the true liberal tradition of arguing over terms rather than substance.
Since you add nothing to most discussions, like Dan adds nothing,you'll go on the dustbin of ignore as well.
I don't know what to say...I'm as prone to making silly posts as anybody. Sometimes I think people read me just to see what dumbass thing I'm pumping out now.... :whistle:
-
But he is the guy who began the process of turning marriage from a sacrament to a civil entity.
In other words, Martin Luther is the guy standing at the top of the slide in that "slippery slope" that everyone talks about when it comes to the degradation of the sacrament of marriage.
That may, or may not be the case, but please point out where the Founders were German Lutherans, or even Calvinists, and then we'll talk......
My previous point was that Luther said a lot of things that have no bearing on how we now live.
Scapegoating him because he broke away from an extremely corrupt (at the time) Catholic Church, won't take you very far among logical Americans, Luis.
-
I don't wish to get embroiled in this aspect of the conversation, but I don't think it's a personal attack to say an argument makes no sense. My arguments often fail. If someone points that out to me, well, good for them. They caught the flaw in my logic. I consider that helpful.
-
He makes no sense and your selective vision gives you no credibility.
Here's the first of Dan's post that caught my eye.
It's interesting that the more liberal members of the forum follow in the true liberal tradition of arguing over terms rather than substance.
Since you add nothing to most discussions, like Dan adds nothing,you'll go on the dustbin of ignore as well.
After getting called on engaging in personal attacks, Luis responds with... (wait for it)... personal attacks... :silly:
-
After getting called on engaging in personal attacks, Luis responds with... (wait for it)... personal attacks... :silly:
I'm actually kind of flattered to be grouped with you. :beer:
-
I don't wish to get embroiled in this aspect of the conversation, but I don't think it's a personal attack to say an argument makes no sense. My arguments often fail. If someone points that out to me, well, good for them. They caught the flaw in my logic. I consider that helpful.
Agree.
-
I'm actually kind of flattered to be grouped with you. :beer:
Oh you are a bad boy... :silly:
-
I'm actually kind of flattered to be grouped with you. :beer:
Oh, don't go there, Relic.
You're in a whole different universe!
-
That may, or may not be the case, but please point out where the Founders were German Lutherans, or even Calvinists, and then we'll talk......
My previous point was that Luther said a lot of things that have no bearing on how we now live.
Scapegoating him because he broke away from an extremely corrupt (at the time) Catholic Church, won't take you very far among logical Americans, Luis.
Well, they were Protestants, so not Catholics, and all Protestants are fruit from Marin Luther's tree.
P.S. There were so many Germans in the US during the days of the Founders that they made Ben Franklin concerned about the future of the future nation.
"I am perfectly of your mind, that measures of great Temper are necessary with the Germans: and am not without Apprehensions, that thro’ their indiscretion or Ours, or both, great disorders and inconveniences may one day arise among us; Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation, and as Ignorance is often attended with Credulity when Knavery would mislead it, and with Suspicion when Honesty would set it right; and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, ’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain. Their own Clergy have very little influence over the people; who seem to take an uncommon pleasure in abusing and discharging the Minister on every trivial occasion. Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it; and as Kolben says of the young Hottentots, that they are not esteemed men till they have shewn their manhood by beating their mothers, so these seem to think themselves not free, till they can feel their liberty in abusing and insulting their Teachers. Thus they are under no restraint of Ecclesiastical Government; They behave, however, submissively enough at present to the Civil Government which I wish they may continue to do: For I remember when they modestly declined intermeddling in our Elections, but now they come in droves, and carry all before them, except in one or two Counties; Few of their children in the Country learn English; they import many Books from Germany; and of the six printing houses in the Province, two are entirely German, two half German half English, and but two entirely English; They have one German News-paper, and one half German. Advertisements intended to be general are now printed in Dutch and English; the Signs in our Streets have inscriptions in both languages, and in some places only German: They begin of late to make all their Bonds and other legal Writings in their own Language, which (though I think it ought not to be) are allowed good in our Courts, where the German Business so encreases that there is continual need of Interpreters; and I suppose in a few years they will be also necessary in the Assembly, to tell one half of our Legislators what the other half say; In short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious." - Benjamin Franklin, excerpted from a letter to Peter Collinson, May, 9 1753
-
That may, or may not be the case, but please point out where the Founders were German Lutherans, or even Calvinists, and then we'll talk......
My previous point was that Luther said a lot of things that have no bearing on how we now live.
Scapegoating him because he broke away from an extremely corrupt (at the time) Catholic Church, won't take you very far among logical Americans, Luis.
It's not so much that he broke away from the Church, but that he took what was a sacrament and gave the control over it to government, and here we are, all upset about what the government is doing to marriage.
-
It's not so much that he broke away from the Church, but that he took what was a sacrament and gave the control over it to government, and here we are, all upset about what the government is doing to marriage.
P.S. And making the argument that the only solution and the only way to save the institution of marriage, is to take it from the government and return it to the Church.
-
I was going to make a comment but it looks like the conversation has degenerated to a farce.
I'll try another thread at another time.
-
I was going to make a comment but it looks like the conversation has degenerated to a farce.
I'll try another thread at another time.
Yep..... **nononono*
-
I was going to make a comment but it looks like the conversation has degenerated to a farce.
I'll try another thread at another time.
Don't label a well-mannered and thoughtful three-page conversation a "farce" because of a few posts that add nothing to anything being discussed.
That's myopic.
Three pages of polite and even insightful commentary dismissed because some people decided to comment on the posters rather than the topic?
And yes... if you walk into a thread in a right-wing forum and your your entire contribution is likening those with whom you don't agree with to "liberals", you have zero to add to the discussion and you are guilty of trying to derail the thread.
I called it and moved on.
-
Yep..... **nononono*
I'm sorry Myst, but I got quite a lot out of this thread. I'm sorry if I said anything n it to make you think it was sub par.
-
I'm sorry Myst, but I got quite a lot out of this thread. I'm sorry if I said anything n it to make you think it was sub par.
Me thinks some of us are getting a bit tired of the bullsh*t that seems to appear whenever there's a philosophical difference of opinions.
-
Me thinks some of us are getting a bit tired of the bullsh*t that seems to appear whenever there's a philosophical difference of opinions.
Totally believable to me. It's why I left for a few months.
-
I'm sorry Myst, but I got quite a lot out of this thread. I'm sorry if I said anything n it to make you think it was sub par.
No problem Cyber...this thread has remained more civil then some I've seen...lol...
-
Me thinks some of us are getting a bit tired of the bullsh*t that seems to appear whenever there's a philosophical difference of opinions.
Are you referring to the high minded, well thought out philosophy of blaming of Protestants and Germans?
How is a similar treatment of Mexicans received?
-
Well, they were Protestants, so not Catholics, and all Protestants are fruit from Marin Luther's tree.
P.S. There were so many Germans in the US during the days of the Founders that they made Ben Franklin concerned about the future of the future nation.
Most of them were Deists, and as such didn't have much in common with Martin Luther.
Frankly, Luther was more of a Catholic than a Deist.
I think you're going nowhere with this line of attack, Luis.....
(Oh, and I know about the German thing too, but Mennonites are a far cry from Lutherans, as well).
-
Are you referring to the high minded, well thought out philosophy of blaming of Protestants and Germans?
How is a similar treatment of Mexicans received?
Whatever are you talking about? We all know that Martin Luther was a hack. And the Catholic Church is the one true Church. :laugh:
Seriously though...I'm not alone in getting enjoyment reading Luis' posts. He gets me to exercise my brain on a myriad of subjects.
He's 'the most interesting man in the world'! :laugh:
-
Whatever are you talking about? We all know that Martin Luther was a hack. And the Catholic Church is the one true Church. :laugh:
Seriously though...I'm not alone in getting enjoyment reading Luis' posts. He gets me to exercise my brain on a myriad of subjects.
He's 'the most interesting man in the world'! :laugh:
:thumbsup:
And where and how did he develop such skills of logic?
-
Whatever are you talking about? We all know that Martin Luther was a hack. And the Catholic Church is the one true Church. :laugh:
Seriously though...I'm not alone in getting enjoyment reading Luis' posts. He gets me to exercise my brain on a myriad of subjects.
He's 'the most interesting man in the world'! :laugh:
We all have our own tastes. I hate squash and my wife loves it. I don't hold it against her.
-
We all have our own tastes. I hate squash and my wife loves it. I don't hold it against her.
:beer:
-
Most of them were Deists, and as such didn't have much in common with Martin Luther.
Frankly, Luther was more of a Catholic than a Deist.
I think you're going nowhere with this line of attack, Luis.....
(Oh, and I know about the German thing too, but Mennonites are a far cry from Lutherans, as well).
"Line of attack"?
That's not a line of attack musiclady, it's a line of thought.
You may not agree but it isn't an attack, it's a perspective on history.
Here's more Martin Luther on marriage.
"No one can deny that marriage is an external, worldly, matter, like clothing and food, house and property, subject to temporal authority, as the many imperial laws enacted on the subject prove."
Luther compared marriage to clothing and housing. Of the world.
Before Luther there was the Catholic Church and marriage as one of seven sacraments. After Luther's Reformulation there was the Catholic Church, where marriage was (and still is) a sacrament, and lots of other not Catholic churches, and civil marriage.
"Luther was more of a Catholic..."
Luther was excommunicated, then later declared an outlaw and a heretic by the Church.
We may differ in opinion, but you shouldn't take that asan attack.
An attack would be closer to something like: "Scapegoating him because he broke away from an extremely corrupt (at the time) Catholic Church, won't take you very far among logical Americans, Luis."
And here I thought myself both a logical person and an American.
-
"Line of attack"?
That's not a line of attack musiclady, it's a line of thought.
You may not agree but it isn't an attack, it's a perspective on history.
Here's more Martin Luther on marriage.
"No one can deny that marriage is an external, worldly, matter, like clothing and food, house and property, subject to temporal authority, as the many imperial laws enacted on the subject prove."
Luther compared marriage to clothing and housing. Of the world.
Before Luther there was the Catholic Church and marriage as one of seven sacraments. After Luther's Reformulation there was the Catholic Church, where marriage was (and still is) a sacrament, and lots of other not Catholic churches, and civil marriage.
"Luther was more of a Catholic..."
Luther was excommunicated, then later declared an outlaw and a heretic by the Church.
We may differ in opinion, but you shouldn't take that asan attack.
An attack would be closer to something like: "Scapegoating him because he broke away from an extremely corrupt (at the time) Catholic Church, won't take you very far among logical Americans, Luis."
And here I thought myself both a logical person and an American.
I just wrote a thoughtful post to you, and it disappeared, but I don't feel like recreating it right now.
Suffice it to say, that you and I have a different "opinion" regarding the factual and historical Luther, and the reality that his religion was closer to Catholicism than Deism.
In addition, I believe it would behoove the Republican leaders to emulate Luther.
When confronted with an attack against him and his belief in Scripture regarding salvation by faith, he responded, "I cannot, I will not recant. Here I stand."
If Mike Pence would have done something like that yesterday rather than caving in to the irrational attacks of the demonic left, he would have gained the respect of the majority of Americans. Instead, he folded.
Now........ when you decide to give up your seeming obsession with Luther and us nasty "collectivist" Protestants, we can talk again.
G'nite, Luis.
-
BOOM! Newt Gingrich SLAMS opposition of Indiana RFRA law as nothing but a LYNCH MOB (http://therightscoop.com/boom-newt-gingrich-slams-opposition-of-indiana-rfra-law-as-nothing-but-a-lynch-mob/)
Posted by The Right Scoop on Apr 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM in Politics
Everyone should take note, because THIS is how you respond to the radical left screaming about Indiana’s RFRA law. Not only does he defend Mike Pence on HuffPost Live, he calls the opposition a lynch mob and won’t back down when challenged. He also hits back at the louder voices condemning the law over their selective moral outrage and blatant hypocrisy:
-------------------
Newt does the slap down on this one... I wish I could embed the video.
http://therightscoop.com/boom-newt-gingrich-slams-opposition-of-indiana-rfra-law-as-nothing-but-a-lynch-mob/ (http://therightscoop.com/boom-newt-gingrich-slams-opposition-of-indiana-rfra-law-as-nothing-but-a-lynch-mob/)
-
Newt was superb! Of course, he usually is. He had that info babe eating out of his hand.
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/237698-indiana-lawmakers-strike-deal-to-fix-religious-freedom-law (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/237698-indiana-lawmakers-strike-deal-to-fix-religious-freedom-law)
Indiana lawmakers strike deal to fix religious freedom law
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/237698-indiana-lawmakers-strike-deal-to-fix-religious-freedom-law (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/237698-indiana-lawmakers-strike-deal-to-fix-religious-freedom-law)
Indiana lawmakers strike deal to fix religious freedom law
Pence blew it the moment he cowered, the moment he backed down. Instead of confidently standing in support of protecting religious conscience, he caved.
Pence could take a lesson from Newt.
-
"The legislative fix reportedly would make clear that the law, which prevents government intrusion onto personal religious beliefs, does not justify denying services to someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity."
What wrong with that?
Does it bring the law in line with the other states that have passed religious protection laws?
-
Pence blew it the moment he cowered, the moment he backed down. Instead of confidently standing in support of protecting religious conscience, he caved.
Pence could take a lesson from Newt.
Agreed! Additionally, Pence's capitulation will have far-reaching impacts. The shrill voices from the left will become louder when they are selectively outraged over future issues, the media reporting will be more breathless, and political calculus will be more complex for future legislation. Pence will live with this.
Walker v. Pence - a study in contrasts during a political earthquake.
-
"The legislative fix reportedly would make clear that the law, which prevents government intrusion onto personal religious beliefs, does not justify denying services to someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity."
What wrong with that?
Does it bring the law in line with the other states that have passed religious protection laws?
To me at this moment, all of that is secondary perhaps tertiary. The rapid capitulation and its effects are now the big issue.
-
Agreed! Additionally, Pence's capitulation will have far-reaching impacts. The shrill voices from the left will become louder when they are selectively outraged over future issues, the media reporting will be more breathless, and political calculus will be more complex for future legislation. Pence will live with this.
Walker v. Pence - a study in contrasts during a political earthquake.
Agree with the far-reaching impact of Pence's weakness.
The leftist bullies have been emboldened by their victory here, and I believe we are going to see bullying from leftist thugs in the 2016 campaigns, as well as against individual Christian business owners, like we have never seen before.
I like the comparison with Walker, too. Scott stood up against the thugs and won.
Pence crumbled and lost........... and the rest of us will suffer for it.
-
Agreed! Additionally, Pence's capitulation will have far-reaching impacts. The shrill voices from the left will become louder when they are selectively outraged over future issues, the media reporting will be more breathless, and political calculus will be more complex for future legislation. Pence will live with this.
Walker v. Pence - a study in contrasts during a political earthquake.
What is happening here is exactly what is supposed to be happening. A contentious issue is working its way (and being worked out) through the laboratory of the States. It just needs to get to the SCOTUS to be resolved.
Anti homosexual sodomy laws were struck down (because they should have been) by Lawrence.
The government's attempt at forcing businesses owned by individuals with strong religious objections to providing abortifacients to employees was struck down by Hobby Lobby.
The issue of same-sex marriage will be decided very shortly with four cases on the docks scheduled for hearings sometime this April.
In both Lawrence and Hobby Lobby, the SCOTUS, whether you agree with the outcome of the cases or not, sided with the rights of individuals over the rights of the collective. I expect the same outcome for the same-sex marriage cases. I believe that same-sex marriage will be legal in all States by the end of this year.
Should one of these "baker won't bake me a wedding cake because i'm gay so I'm suing him" cases goes before the SCOTUS. I think that the SCOTUS will look at all the facts, weigh the rights of the baker and the rights of the gay couple and come up with the most logical response which safeguards both the baker's rights (religious liberty) and the gay couple's rights (the State's compelling interest to eradicate discrimination as well as not allowing any class of citizen to be treated as second class citizens) and find the least restrictive means to resolve the conflict.
What is driving this issue is religious opposition to homosexuality being codified.
We've written laws and statutes against homosexual sex, voted and enacted referendums making same-sex marriage illegal, and (in the case of Indiana) crafted a law which makes it legal and to deny service to homosexuals with impunity, based on religious objection to homosexuality.
It's like we (or a segment of we) is trying to make homosexuality non-existent in our society. That ship has sailed, and the more laws we enact trying to suppress homosexual behavior, the closer we get to having the Court grant legal protected status to sexual preferences.
I understand and respect the religious objections, but I also understand and respect the objections of some who don't think that they should be forced to accept a second-class citizenship because of laws based on religious beliefs that they themselves may not believe in. "Why should I be governed by someone else's religious beliefs" is a perfectly acceptable question to ask in a free society.
Having said all that, I believe that the homosexual activists will lose this battle if it ever reaches the SCOTUS, since the SCOTUS, in their need to find a balance between the State's compelling needs to both not promote discrimination and respect the religious beliefs of its citizens, will simply see that the cake can be baked elsewhere, by someone who does not object to baking it.
What's ironic here, is that the Court may work its way back to a general religious exemption case that was overturned by the SCOTUS with Scalia and Rehnquist leading the majority charge. They were right (in my opinion) when they argued that a general religious exemption based on the free exercise clause would have a veritable spectral march of subsequent demands for religious exemptions from anyone, and the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind, including antidiscrimination law. Case in point, Bob Jones University (I visited that place in the '70's, so I KNOW what this was all about) wanted a religious exemption from race discrimination laws so that they could keep blacks out of their campus (Bob Jones Unioversity vs. The United States (1983).
This will work itself out. It just needs to get to the SCOTUS.
-
Again Luis, another well-reasoned post. It is one that I don't take any exception to - save one perhaps which is the tangential issue here (for me).
I take exception to the speed in which Pence capitulated to the outrage. The Indiana legislature passed it, he signed it. So, stand on it. Instead, his knees buckled.
If it proves to be flawed or abused, correct it later based on experience; not now for political expediency.
That is my issue.
-
Again Luis, another well-reasoned post. It is one that I don't take any exception to - save one perhaps which is the tangential issue here (for me).
I take exception to the speed in which Pence capitulated to the outrage. The Indiana legislature passed it, he signed it. So, stand on it. Instead, his knees buckled.
If it proves to be flawed or abused, correct it later based on experience; not now for political expediency.
That is my issue.
I never mentioned Pence, and in a way I believe that the law should stand so that the law suit can be filed.
Pence is a politician, not a warrior or a crusader. So he will act in a politically expedient manner.
He buckled because the law is a flawed law. It is too broad, and as Scalia and Rehnquist agreed general religious exemptioms are intrinsically flawed. I get what you're saying, but the fact remains that he signed a bad bill into law, and he's taking fire for it.
Not every politician can take the same amount of fire.
The main difference between Walker and Pence are the issues themselves.
Walker had black and white financial reasons backing his actions but Pence is dealing with the grey areas of a social issue.
-
While acknowledging they have the power--I don't see why I should have confidence that those temporary 9 folks in black robes have the wisdom to decide matters of religious conscience for me? And still be true to the founding documents--Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and First Amendment, which form a foundational documentary shield for religious conscience.
-
While acknowledging they have the power--I don't see why I should have confidence that those temporary 9 folks in black robes have the wisdom to decide matters of religious conscience for me? And still be true to the founding documents--Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and First Amendment, which form a foundational documentary shield for religious conscience.
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.
-
None of us have that choice.
You can't just abide by the decisions that you support (Hobby Lobby) and not for 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.
That's mostly true. If I were a baker and the SCOTUS ruled that if I bake cakes for heterosexual weddings, then I have to bake cakes for homosexual weddings, and I felt very strongly about not wanting to support the latter, then I have the option of ceasing the former and staying within the law. I would have a sign, "We don't bake cakes for ANY weddings" prominently displayed in my shop over the bread, cupcakes and cookies. I think most bakeries would be able to stay in business with that hole in their market.
As an aside, I think you have a much better opinion of the SCOTUS than I do when it comes to "doing the right thing." Additionally, if universal gay marriage is approved by the SCOTUS, the issue will not be put to rest. No, it will become another political football to be kicked around for decades, like Roe v Wade, proving political issues need to be decided by political process, messy as that is.
-
"Walker had black and white financial reasons backing his actions but Pence is dealing with the grey areas of a social issue. "
True dat. This is why the two situations are not comparable. Mixing apples and oranges is what we often do on these forums.
All I have heard on this thread and others is how Pence, who two weeks ago was a good guy, is now a POS that "caved". Let me be the first to disagree.
All I want to know is "What does Bigun say"??????
-
While acknowledging they have the power--I don't see why I should have confidence that those temporary 9 folks in black robes have the wisdom to decide matters of religious conscience for me? And still be true to the founding documents--Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and First Amendment, which form a foundational documentary shield for religious conscience.
This is just the normal progression of the idea that you can force people to behave in certain ways in the name of achieving the goal of 'non-discrimination'.
People discriminate, always have and always will. It just has to reach the point of insanity before people will wake up. And maybe they never will...
-
"Walker had black and white financial reasons backing his actions but Pence is dealing with the grey areas of a social issue. "
True dat. This is why the two situations are not comparable. Mixing apples and oranges is what we often do on these forums.
All I have heard on this thread and others is how Pence, who two weeks ago was a good guy, is now a POS that "caved". Let me be the first to disagree.
I still don't think that comparing Pence's reaction to a leftist assault and Walker's is an apples to oranges comparison.
While I don't think Pence is now automatically a bad guy because of his response, he has definitely lost the respect of many of us, desperate to see character and strength in the people who represent us.
I think Pence dropped the ball on this. He needed to make it clear that this bill was not discrimination, but rather a defense against discrimination. He needed to articulate that it was to protect the First Amendment rights of Christians to live up to their own consciences. He needed to say that the attacks against Indiana were trumped up by the hate-filled leftist thugs (though in more diplomatic terms, perhaps!). He needed to make it clear that the attackers were making things up, and the boycotts of Indiana were disingenuous at best. He needed to defend the First Amendment, those who believe in it, and his own state, and those of us in other states who are being and will be attacked in the future.
He withered under fire. Walker, attacked by the same leftist evil, did not.
It's the responses of the two men that are comparable, whether or not the details of the leftist gestapo attack were the same.
Obviously, some people will overreact and throw Pence under the bus (that's what people do), but it is not wrong for those of us who are looking for leadership and not seeing it in this case with this Governor, to be disappointed.
-
This is just the normal progression of the idea that you can force people to behave in certain ways in the name of achieving the goal of 'non-discrimination'.
People discriminate, always have and always will. It just has to reach the point of insanity before people will wake up. And maybe they never will...
I discriminated this morning when I chose to turn right instead of left at the end of the block on my way to work. Yes, we discriminate all the time, but most people seem to have forgotten exactly what that means.
-
As an aside, I think you have a much better opinion of the SCOTUS than I do when it comes to "doing the right thing." Additionally, if universal gay marriage is approved by the SCOTUS, the issue will not be put to rest. No, it will become another political football to be kicked around for decades, like Roe v Wade, proving political issues need to be decided by political process, messy as that is.
There's a reason why I have a good opinion of the SCOTUS.
They've gotten it mostly right over their 224 year history.
Sure they've handed down dome bad findings, Dredd Scott, Kelo come to mind, but overall they've done an outstanding job.
Every decision however, has one side thinking they did the right thing and the other thinking the wrong thing, and if you sat two people down, one a liberal and the other a conservative and asked them to each write down a list of the cases that the SCOTUS got right and the ones they got wrong, you'd end up with basically the same list, but in mirror image.
I also understand that when we get to contentious issues where each side's argument has a degree of merit, they are the guys charged by the Constitution to settle the dispute, and I am obligated to live by their decision since it is my choice to live under this Constitution. Just like you wouldn't bake wedding cakes for anyone, I don't have to live under a Constitution that empowers the judiciary to do what the SCOTUS does.
To decide these kinds of issues politically is not a good idea, since the issues would always be decided by the majority, and the rights of minorities could be easily trampled. I always go back to an old text boom explanation of the differences between a Democracy and a Republic:
"The purpose of a Republic is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate."
"... and the liberties...".
That's the balance. Protecting both the rights AND the liberties of the people.
Political decisions are driven by politicians, and politicians are driven not so much by conscience, but by electability and the pursuit of power, and asides from that, politicians like it when contentious social issues are left unresolved since it gives them issues to run on.
Abortion is such an issue.
What difference does a POTUS stand on abortion make?
They really can't do anything about it. It is way easier however, for a politician to inflame passions and garner support by talking to people about abortion than it is to detail how they'll get the nation out of debt.
Almost every right wing politician has sided against Roe and abortion, but it's 42 years since Roe, and Roe stands unscathed.
Lacking Roe, abortion would still be legal in the US in the more liberal States and by extension, to all Americans.
-
I still don't think that comparing Pence's reaction to a leftist assault and Walker's is an apples to oranges comparison.
While I don't think Pence is now automatically a bad guy because of his response, he has definitely lost the respect of many of us, desperate to see character and strength in the people who represent us.
I think Pence dropped the ball on this. He needed to make it clear that this bill was not discrimination, but rather a defense against discrimination. He needed to articulate that it was to protect the First Amendment rights of Christians to live up to their own consciences. He needed to say that the attacks against Indiana were trumped up by the hate-filled leftist thugs (though in more diplomatic terms, perhaps!). He needed to make it clear that the attackers were making things up, and the boycotts of Indiana were disingenuous at best. He needed to defend the First Amendment, those who believe in it, and his own state, and those of us in other states who are being and will be attacked in the future.
He withered under fire. Walker, attacked by the same leftist evil, did not.
It's the responses of the two men that are comparable, whether or not the details of the leftist gestapo attack were the same.
Obviously, some people will overreact and throw Pence under the bus (that's what people do), but it is not wrong for those of us who are looking for leadership and not seeing it in this case with this Governor, to be disappointed.
:amen:
-
I still don't think that comparing Pence's reaction to a leftist assault and Walker's is an apples to oranges comparison.
While I don't think Pence is now automatically a bad guy because of his response, he has definitely lost the respect of many of us, desperate to see character and strength in the people who represent us.
I think Pence dropped the ball on this. He needed to make it clear that this bill was not discrimination, but rather a defense against discrimination. He needed to articulate that it was to protect the First Amendment rights of Christians to live up to their own consciences. He needed to say that the attacks against Indiana were trumped up by the hate-filled leftist thugs (though in more diplomatic terms, perhaps!). He needed to make it clear that the attackers were making things up, and the boycotts of Indiana were disingenuous at best. He needed to defend the First Amendment, those who believe in it, and his own state, and those of us in other states who are being and will be attacked in the future.
He withered under fire. Walker, attacked by the same leftist evil, did not.
It's the responses of the two men that are comparable, whether or not the details of the leftist gestapo attack were the same.
Obviously, some people will overreact and throw Pence under the bus (that's what people do), but it is not wrong for those of us who are looking for leadership and not seeing it in this case with this Governor, to be disappointed.
:thumbsup:
Enthusiastically agree!
-
I still don't think that comparing Pence's reaction to a leftist assault and Walker's is an apples to oranges comparison.
While I don't think Pence is now automatically a bad guy because of his response, he has definitely lost the respect of many of us, desperate to see character and strength in the people who represent us.
I think Pence dropped the ball on this. He needed to make it clear that this bill was not discrimination, but rather a defense against discrimination. He needed to articulate that it was to protect the First Amendment rights of Christians to live up to their own consciences. He needed to say that the attacks against Indiana were trumped up by the hate-filled leftist thugs (though in more diplomatic terms, perhaps!). He needed to make it clear that the attackers were making things up, and the boycotts of Indiana were disingenuous at best. He needed to defend the First Amendment, those who believe in it, and his own state, and those of us in other states who are being and will be attacked in the future.
He withered under fire. Walker, attacked by the same leftist evil, did not.
It's the responses of the two men that are comparable, whether or not the details of the leftist gestapo attack were the same.
Obviously, some people will overreact and throw Pence under the bus (that's what people do), but it is not wrong for those of us who are looking for leadership and not seeing it in this case with this Governor, to be disappointed.
Basically because Walker has terra firma to stand on while Pence was arguably wrong.
Even Rehnquist and Scalia disagreed with such broadly crafted religious exemptions.
BTW... Pence represents everyone in his State, not a portion of the people in his State and certainly not a larger "us", and a good number of those people he represents vehemently disagree with this law as written.
-
"I think Pence dropped the ball on this. He needed to make it clear that this bill was not discrimination, but rather a defense against discrimination. He needed to articulate that it was to protect the First Amendment rights of Christians to live up to their own consciences. He needed to say that the attacks against Indiana were trumped up by the hate-filled leftist thugs (though in more diplomatic terms, perhaps!). He needed to make it clear that the attackers were making things up, and the boycotts of Indiana were disingenuous at best. He needed to defend the First Amendment, those who believe in it, and his own state, and those of us in other states who are being and will be attacked in the future."
There are all kinds of ways to reply that Pence could have taken and to be honest, I'm not sure what was in the original bill or what Pence's total responses were. What I do know is that he responded to criticisms in his way which was to propose a solution to something he viewed as needing clarification. That's his job, he's the governor.
I take a look at all this man has accomplished in his state and I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Others take a look at the situation and arrive at a different conclusion, one that I disagree with.
Why are we so quick to eat our own?
-
Reacting from a defensive position shows uncertainty and weakness. If he wasn't sure it was good legislation why did he sign the bill?
-
You can't just abide by the decisions that you support (Hobby Lobby) and not by the ones you oppose (Lawrence).
Well it certainly appears to this observer that the current regime has very much failed to get that memo!
-
Luis, I don't think we'll ever agree on the proper role of the SCOTUS (I will never be able to state my case as eloquently as you can). I still think major social reforms should be done in the political process, not the Courts. You mentioned the Courts acted against the majority opinion on abortion, and are likely to do so again for gay marriage. The purpose of working it out politically is to move the hearts and minds of people in the "correct" direction. If Abortion had been left alone it would, as you said, be a practice permitted almost everywhere, available to everybody willing to cross a state line. That's true because hearts and minds have changed over the years (some would argue not for the better, but that's another argument I don't want to have).
Same with Gay Marriage. It used to be a major third rail, a hot-button issue sure to bring a lot of people to the polls to vote against it just a few years ago. That has completely changed, and if things are allowed to move without the courts' intervention that will be available (tyranny free) for every American as well in just a few years.
The courts need to stay out of making major changes to the fabric of society, now matter how good the cause may seem. It's tyranny in black robes, even if they do "the right thing." Just call Balls and Strikes, that's it.
-
I suppose it depends on the position you choose to take.
If you feel he "caved", then you might say he's just an ignorant pol. He clearly indicated that he "never expected all the uproar" which may tend to support that position.
OR, maybe he felt the possibility of discrimination was ok and he agreed with it.
OR, maybe he felt the bill was a good bill and worthy of his signature. I tend to think this one applies because as I stated before, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.
He's a pol but not a devious pol. Maybe this will wise him up a bit.
I do think the central issue of this thread is whether or not he "caved". Best as I can tell, everyone on this forum, with the exception of moi, thinks he did.
-
"Walker had black and white financial reasons backing his actions but Pence is dealing with the grey areas of a social issue. "
True dat. This is why the two situations are not comparable. Mixing apples and oranges is what we often do on these forums.
All I have heard on this thread and others is how Pence, who two weeks ago was a good guy, is now a POS that "caved". Let me be the first to disagree.
All I want to know is "What does Bigun say"??????
Bigun says that Pence should have just kept his mouth shut and let the leftist trash do what they are going to do no matter what he does.
One of main (perhaps the only) reasons the pilgrims came to America to begin with was to have the freedom to associate or not with whom they pleased. I think they were right and that we should still have that ability today.
A baker should have the right to tell you that he is not going to bake your cake for any reason he chooses. I don't care if it's simply because he doesn't like your looks! You have every right to find a baker who does like you looks, or who wants your money despite what he thinks of your looks, that will bake your cake. THAT is what I call FREEDOM!
And one more thing while I'm at it. A human being cannot possibly survive on this planet if he does not discriminate. A LOT in fact!
-
Luis, I don't think we'll ever agree on the proper role of the SCOTUS (I will never be able to state my case as eloquently as you can). I still think major social reforms should be done in the political process, not the Courts. You mentioned the Courts acted against the majority opinion on abortion, and are likely to do so again for gay marriage. The purpose of working it out politically is to move the hearts and minds of people in the "correct" direction. If Abortion had been left alone it would, as you said, be a practice permitted almost everywhere, available to everybody willing to cross a state line. That's true because hearts and minds have changed over the years (some would argue not for the better, but that's another argument I don't want to have).
Same with Gay Marriage. It used to be a major third rail, a hot-button issue sure to bring a lot of people to the polls to vote against it just a few years ago. That has completely changed, and if things are allowed to move without the courts' intervention that will be available (tyranny free) for every American as well in just a few years.
The courts need to stay out of making major changes to the fabric of society, now matter how good the cause may seem. It's tyranny in black robes, even if they do "the right thing." Just call Balls and Strikes, that's it.
The majority favors same sex marriage at this time.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx
Back when Loving was decided, 72% of the people were against interracial marriage.
-
There are all kinds of ways to reply that Pence could have taken and to be honest, I'm not sure what was in the original bill or what Pence's total responses were. What I do know is that he responded to criticisms in his way which was to propose a solution to something he viewed as needing clarification. That's his job, he's the governor.
I take a look at all this man has accomplished in his state and I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Others take a look at the situation and arrive at a different conclusion, one that I disagree with.
Why are we so quick to eat our own?
I'm not 'eating' anyone.
I am voicing disagreement and disappointment with someone whom I felt could have handled the situation with strength.
He did not. Apparently the vociferousness of the attack rattled him to the point where he didn't react in the best interest of the state, because he enabled the leftist enemy to get the better of him.
-
I'm not 'eating' anyone.
I am voicing disagreement and disappointment with someone whom I felt could have handled the situation with strength.
He did not. Apparently the vociferousness of the attack rattled him to the point where he didn't react in the best interest of the state, because he enabled the leftist enemy to get the better of him.
The people in his State were attacking him.
He may have not reacted in the best interest of a political faction within his State, but there are other political factions in his State with a voice in government.
-
Basically because Walker has terra firma to stand on while Pence was arguably wrong.
Even Rehnquist and Scalia disagreed with such broadly crafted religious exemptions.
BTW... Pence represents everyone in his State, not a portion of the people in his State and certainly not a larger "us", and a good number of those people he represents vehemently disagree with this law as written.
Ah, but religious freedom IS in the best interest of everyone in his state.
He could have said, we'll look at the law and tweak it without showing the weakness he showed.
He did not clarify immediately that the law was being grossly misinterpreted by its attackers. He did not clarify that the law was not written to discriminate, and that saying that it did was patently false.
He could have reacted with strength, and he didn't.
-
Show of hands please.
Who here has actually read the legislation we're all discussing?
-
I suppose it depends on the position you choose to take.
If you feel he "caved", then you might say he's just an ignorant pol. He clearly indicated that he "never expected all the uproar" which may tend to support that position.
OR, maybe he felt the possibility of discrimination was ok and he agreed with it.
OR, maybe he felt the bill was a good bill and worthy of his signature. I tend to think this one applies because as I stated before, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.
He's a pol but not a devious pol. Maybe this will wise him up a bit.
I do think the central issue of this thread is whether or not he "caved". Best as I can tell, everyone on this forum, with the exception of moi, thinks he did.
That sounds like a pretty fair assessment of how we got to this page.
-
The people in his State were attacking him.
He may have not reacted in the best interest of a political faction within his State, but there are other political factions in his State with a voice in government.
He needed to firmly represent the truth about the bill, and he did not.
Truth is not dependent on 'political factions.' The bill was not discriminatory against gays, and he didn't defend that fact.
-
The majority favors same sex marriage at this time.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx
Back when Loving was decided, 72% of the people were against interracial marriage.
To protect us from misguided majorities is EXACTLY why we were given a Republic instead of a democracy!
-
Ah, but religious freedom IS in the best interest of everyone in his state.
He could have said, we'll look at the law and tweak it without showing the weakness he showed.
He did not clarify immediately that the law was being grossly misinterpreted by its attackers. He did not clarify that the law was not written to discriminate, and that saying that it did was patently false.
He could have reacted with strength, and he didn't.
He said that exact thing.
The weakness is perhaps your perception.
Have you read the legislation?
-
To protect us from misguided majorities is EXACTLY why we were given a Republic instead of a democracy!
Who is forcing you to marry a man Bigun?
-
He needed to firmly represent the truth about the bill, and he did not.
Truth is not dependent on 'political factions.' The bill was not discriminatory against gays, and he didn't defend that fact.
Have you read the bill?
-
Show of hands please.
Who here has actually read the legislation we're all discussing?
Not me. I can't read legalese, and am willing to admit that people who have been steadfastly wrong in interpreting laws when it comes to their self-interest in the past could actually have this right. I just doubt it very much.
I certainly could be guilty of backing the wrong horse. A lot of the argument, however stems from how Pence reacted, not whether he is correct on the merits. If it's a bad law after all, his reaction looks a lot like caving, and a lot of us are sick of seeing that in people we expect to fight on our behalf. He could have doe a "fix" later after the liberals have stopped screaming and went somewhere else, like Arkansas.
-
Who is forcing you to marry a man Bigun?
Bob Hope had a joke about that.....
-
He said that exact thing.
The weakness is perhaps your perception.
Have you read the legislation?
I know that's a 'gotcha' question, but honest person that I am, I'll answer it. No, I haven't read it, but I've read comments and responses from people who have. If I read legislation, it would still be subject to my own interpretation, so I try to find out what people whom I trust think. (For the record, my husband is one of the only people in the US who read the entire Obamacare bill, and I trust him completely about what's in it).
I don't believe we're talking about 'perception' however. He did NOT respond to the lies that were being told about the bill. He did NOT correctly state that this was a political attack and a ploy of the left.
I know he said that they would take a look at the bill and tweak it, but it was surrounded by an absence of correction of the record of those who were attacking the State of Indiana.
-
Who is forcing you to marry a man Bigun?
No one! And they will not! Nor will they force me to have have any part whatever in a wedding in which two men or two women are "married"!
-
No one! And they will not! Nor will they force me to have have any part whatever in a wedding in which two men or two women are "married"!
So then, what difference does it make to you whether two men marry each other?
-
So then, what difference does it make to you whether two men marry each other?
None! So long as they do not try to force my participation in the proceedings or to pay for the results of what occurs later!
-
I know that's a 'gotcha' question, but honest person that I am, I'll answer it. No, I haven't read it, but I've read comments and responses from people who have. If I read legislation, it would still be subject to my own interpretation, so I try to find out what people whom I trust think. (For the record, my husband is one of the only people in the US who read the entire Obamacare bill, and I trust him completely about what's in it).
I don't believe we're talking about 'perception' however. He did NOT respond to the lies that were being told about the bill. He did NOT correctly state that this was a political attack and a ploy of the left.
I know he said that they would take a look at the bill and tweak it, but it was surrounded by an absence of correction of the record of those who were attacking the State of Indiana.
Thanks for the honesty.
Here's Pence trying to defend the indefensible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skXFH2SFyAA
Here's the text of the legislation:
http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/text-of-indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act/ (http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/text-of-indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act/)
Here are the differences between Clinton's law and Indiana's:
http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/text-of-indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act/
-
So then, what difference does it make to you whether two men marry each other?
That's entirely beside the point of the discussion, Luis, and you know it.
This discussion has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuals can marry, and EVERYTHING to do with the religious liberty given to us in the First Amendment to behave as we believe we are to behave.
If that means that we refuse to participate in a ceremony that we believe is immoral, then we need to be guaranteed the right to refuse and NOT be harassed because we do.
You are diverting from the subject to trap people.
What the majority thinks about gay marriage is not the point. Religious freedom is what's at stake here, and even if the majority of Americans decided to believe that we Christians don't have that any more, the Constitution guarantees that we do.
-
That's entirely beside the point of the discussion, Luis, and you know it.
This discussion has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuals can marry, and EVERYTHING to do with the religious liberty given to us in the First Amendment to behave as we believe we are to behave.
If that means that we refuse to participate in a ceremony that we believe is immoral, then we need to be guaranteed the right to refuse and NOT be harassed because we do.
You are diverting from the subject to trap people.
What the majority thinks about gay marriage is not the point. Religious freedom is what's at stake here, and even if the majority of Americans decided to believe that we Christians don't have that any more, the Constitution guarantees that we do.
No, I followed someone else's lead who brought up the issue of the Courts and same-sex marriage, then when Bigun responded to my response to Cyber Liberty, I responded to Bigun.
There are several threads of debate going on at the same time here.
Why do you insist on assigning nefarious and underhanded motives to my posts?
I'm just talking to people and stating my opinions.
-
None! So long as they do not try to force my participation in the proceedings or to pay for the results of what occurs later!
THANK you! THIS is the point. The militant left is trying to force us to participate or be punished, and in some cases are succeeding in putting people out of business.
The First Amendment should be enough, but apparently it's not. This law is to guarantee our First Amendment right NOT to be coerced into doing something we believe is immoral based on our religious convictions.
The left has twisted it in order to have a political weapon against both Republicans, and more importantly Christians.
-
No, I followed someone else's lead who brought up the issue of the Courts and same-sex marriage, then when Bigun responded to my response to Cyber Liberty, I responded to Bigun.
There are several threads of debate going on at the same time here.
Why do you insist on assigning nefarious and underhanded motives to my posts?
I'm just talking to people and stating my opinions.
I've watched you 'work' before, Luis. This issue is very important to you, and I've observed your efforts to divert before.
btw, not necessarily 'nefarious' but quite a clever tactic on a debate forum.
Especially one that you consider to be 'right wing'.......
Now back to the subject?
-
THANK you! THIS is the point. The militant left is trying to force us to participate or be punished, and in some cases are succeeding in putting people out of business.
The First Amendment should be enough, but apparently it's not. This law is to guarantee our First Amendment right NOT to be coerced into doing something we believe is immoral based on our religious convictions.
The left has twisted it in order to have a political weapon against both Republicans, and more importantly Christians.
Exactly right!
-
Oh boy... I've missed a lot...
-
THANK you! THIS is the point. The militant left is trying to force us to participate or be punished, and in some cases are succeeding in putting people out of business.
.
Professor: Indiana RFRA ‘Fix’ Could Send Christians to Jail
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/02/professor-indiana-rfra-fix-could-send-christians-to-jail/
The greatly anticipated “fix” to the Indiana religious freedom law has been released by the Indiana legislative committee, and it is far worse than conservatives feared.
According to law professor Mark Rienzi, the new fix will allow the state to prosecute Christians criminally for denying gay weddings their professional affirmation.
Rienzi, of the Becket Fund and Catholic University School of Law and who was lead attorney in the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case that upheld a claim under the federal religious freedom law, said this would “criminalize religious objectors.”
The “fix” maintains the religious liberty law in Indiana but says Christian business cannot use the law in declining to endorse a same-sex wedding. Christian business owners — florists, bakers, caterers and others — will now be forced to provide service for religious ceremonies that go against their “deeply held religious beliefs.” But the fix also says the law cannot establish a defense against not just civil actions but also “criminal prosecution.”
The “fix” carves our exemptions but only for churches, minsters, and overtly religious organizations — not for Christians who run for-profit businesses.
Social conservatives were quick to comment.
Marriage expert Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation said, “…the proposed fix amounts to nothing less than a wholesale repel of the Indian Religious Freedom Restoration Act with respect to those who need religious liberty protections the most.”
The Family Research Council issued a statement: “The new proposal guts the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and empowers the government to impose punishing fines on people for following their religious beliefs about marriage.” FRC president Tony Perkins said, “Religious freedom should not be held hostage to Big Business.” Much of the opposition to the Indian law came from major corporations who threatened economic retaliation for enacting the law.
Activist Linda Harvey pointed a finger at LGBT activists. “This ‘fix’ is everything gay activists could want.”
-
So, it looks like our protection against the Gay Mafia has been 'fixed' out of the law........ **nononono*
-
No, I followed someone else's lead who brought up the issue of the Courts and same-sex marriage, then when Bigun responded to my response to Cyber Liberty, I responded to Bigun.
There are several threads of debate going on at the same time here.
Why do you insist on assigning nefarious and underhanded motives to my posts?
I'm just talking to people and stating my opinions.
I don't think you're nefarious at all, you certainly have cast new light on many issues for me. There must be a lot of baggage from the past somewhere that I don't know/care about. My main beef with this story, aside from the appearance of one of "ours" caving to the left and causing us flood of more grief in the future, is the erosion of the right of association. That seems to have been lost in the shuffling. Our legal ability to choose who we surround ourselves and do business with is shrinking.
Maybe we just disagree on how harmful that is?
-
Professor: Indiana RFRA ‘Fix’ Could Send Christians to Jail
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/02/professor-indiana-rfra-fix-could-send-christians-to-jail/
This would explain the almighty rush to "fix" this law. It also supplies cause to those of us who were insisting on some cooling off before "fixing" things. Why is it every time something gets rushed, it benefits the left?
-
He said that exact thing.
The weakness is perhaps your perception.
Precisely.
In his interview with Snuffelupagus, he used terms and phrases like red herring, completely baseless, avalanche of intolerance, shameless rhetoric, misunderstanding and misinformation and he went after Snuffy.
He did it in a calm, cogent manner.
I'm not sure what else people would want him to say.
-
"...hose of us who were insisting on some cooling off before "fixing" things. "
Now THAT I will agree with.
To all the misfits that threatened to NOT COME to Indiana and not do business with Indiana, I say FK EM. Stay home and take your business elsewhere.
I'm not the governor so I can say that...he can't.
-
He said that exact thing.
The weakness is perhaps your perception.
Precisely.
In his interview with Snuffelupagus, he used terms and phrases like red herring, completely baseless, avalanche of intolerance, shameless rhetoric, misunderstanding and misinformation and he went after Snuffy.
He did it in a calm, cogent manner.
I'm not sure what else people would want him to say.
I was fine with what he said to Snuffy. I wish he'd stayed there.
-
Tough crowd....... :whistle:
-
THANK you! THIS is the point. The militant left is trying to force us to participate or be punished, and in some cases are succeeding in putting people out of business.
The First Amendment should be enough, but apparently it's not. This law is to guarantee our First Amendment right NOT to be coerced into doing something we believe is immoral based on our religious convictions.
The left has twisted it in order to have a political weapon against both Republicans, and more importantly Christians.
Yes, they have twisted it, and intentionally so. The Left wants to blur the distinction between associative freedom and invidious discrimination, so as to advance its poisonous agenda of dividing and conquering people on the basis of group identity.
A pizza shop owner must serve anyone who does not otherwise violate the law, threaten to cause harm to the business owner or otherwise damage the business owner's legitimate interests as an employer. It sure as hell does not mean the owner must bake a rainbow pizza at the demand of a queer customer.
-
I've watched you 'work' before, Luis. This issue is very important to you, and I've observed your efforts to divert before.
btw, not necessarily 'nefarious' but quite a clever tactic on a debate forum.
Especially one that you consider to be 'right wing'.......
Now back to the subject?
It's not "diverting", it's a conversation, and I have the ability to multitask and carry out several conversations at once.
I'm not a linear thinker.
The subject at hand is whether or not some people's religious rights trump other people's liberties. That subject is spread out over several topics... gay marriage, homosexual adoptions, and whether a religious individual who owns a business can deny a service to a homosexual individual based on his or her religious beliefs.
Many subjects, but only one topic... the culture war that's raging in the nation.
-
Yes, they have twisted it, and intentionally so. The Left wants to blur the distinction between associative freedom and invidious discrimination, so as to advance its poisonous agenda of dividing and conquering people on the basis of group identity.
A pizza shop owner must serve anyone who does not otherwise violate the law, threaten to cause harm to the business owner or otherwise damage the business owner's legitimate interests as an employer. It sure as hell does not mean the owner must bake a rainbow pizza at the demand of a queer customer.
I believe that the solution that's been reached in Indiana is actually both fair and workable.
It is my understanding that while that famous baker can't deny baking the cake for the homosexual couple, the photographer won't be forced to participate in the actual ceremony.
That's a generalization, but it is the gist of the compromise.
Now, the baker gets to decide whether or not they will simply not sell wedding cakes to anyone, and the same sex couple will need to find a photographer willing to work the wedding.
-
Can an Indiana customer (gay or otherwise) force a Christian T-shirt screen printer to print a T-shirt emblazoned with "F*** God For Condemning Gay Marriage" or be sued for refusing him service?
-
I believe that the solution that's been reached in Indiana is actually both fair and workable.
It is my understanding that while that famous baker can't deny baking the cake for the homosexual couple, the photographer won't be forced to participate in the actual ceremony.
That's a generalization, but it is the gist of the compromise.
Now, the baker gets to decide whether or not they will simply not sell wedding cakes to anyone, and the same sex couple will need to find a photographer willing to work the wedding.
Who would want to 'force hire' a photographer that personally finds your lifestyle nauseating and sinful? Do you expect his/her best work?
And as Rush said today, "how, in the hell, hard is it to find a gay florist?"
-
It's not "diverting", it's a conversation, and I have the ability to multitask and carry out several conversations at once.
I'm not a linear thinker.
The subject at hand is whether or not some people's religious rights trump other people's liberties. That subject is spread out over several topics... gay marriage, homosexual adoptions, and whether a religious individual who owns a business can deny a service to a homosexual individual based on his or her religious beliefs.
Many subjects, but only one topic... the culture war that's raging in the nation.
Religious liberties were paramount in the Founding documents. If they are taken from us, we have lost one of the main reasons this country came to be.
Homosexuals who wish to marry are at liberty to find one of the many bakers, florists and photographers who don't have a problem with what they're doing.
Instead, they are targeting those whom they know disagree.
In your multi-tasking, perhaps you should try to include asking why the hate-filled left is doing what they are doing to Christian business people across the country.
It is part of their game-plan to take away our freedoms, Luis. It needs to be the Republicans' game plan to allow us to keep them.
Edited to add: If the Republicans don't stand up in defense of the liberty of Christians... who will? They can't drop the ball on this one.
-
Religious liberties were paramount in the Founding documents. If they are taken from us, we have lost one of the main reasons this country came to be.
Homosexuals who wish to marry are at liberty to find one of the many bakers, florists and photographers who don't have a problem with what they're doing.
Instead, they are targeting those whom they know disagree.
In your multi-tasking, perhaps you should try to include asking why the hate-filled left is doing what they are doing to Christian business people across the country.
It is part of their game-plan to take away our freedoms, Luis. It needs to be the Republicans' game plan to allow us to keep them.
Edited to add: If the Republicans don't stand up in defense of the liberty of Christians... who will? They can't drop the ball on this one.
There's a perception problem here.
You accuse homosexuals of "targeting those with whom they disagree" while defending laws targeting homosexuals because we have a religious-based disagreement over their lifestyle.
Homosexuals didn't write anti homosexual laws, they challenged them.
Homosexuals didn't write anti homosexual sodomy laws, they challenged them.
Homosexuals didn't start ballot initiatives and referendums looking to forbid them from ever being able to marry one another, they challenged them.
Homosexuals didn't write this Indiana law which allows for any business or any individual to deny any kind of service to homosexuals based on alleged religious conflicts without having to face any sort of legal consequences, they just challenged them.
There's been a whole lot of "targeting" coming from both sides of this issue.
-
There's a perception problem here.
You accuse homosexuals of "targeting those with whom they disagree" while defending laws targeting homosexuals because we have a religious-based disagreement over their lifestyle.
Homosexuals didn't write anti homosexual laws, they challenged them.
Homosexuals didn't write anti homosexual sodomy laws, they challenged them.
Homosexuals didn't start ballot initiatives and referendums looking to forbid them from ever being able to marry one another, they challenged them.
Homosexuals didn't write this Indiana law which allows for any business or any individual to deny any kind of service to homosexuals based on alleged religious conflicts without having to face any sort of legal consequences, they just challenged them.
There's been a whole lot of "targeting" coming from both sides of this issue.
I agree that there's a perception problem.
I just don't agree that the problem is mine.
If you don't think the left is targeting Christians to bully their way into control of what we can say and do, then your head is deep under the sand.
But I know you won't be persuaded by one word that the rest of us have to say, so I'll let it go here.
Have a Blessed Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter, Luis.
-
"They" are well organized. They are well paid.
They find a business owner who holds religious beliefs that are not in sync with the current outrage of the day, and destroy their businesses and make outright physical threats. Fed by a complicit mainstream media that drives the story headline.
It's not about not being reasonable by finding a more friendly vendor....it's about demanding that every business treat the gay lifestyle as normal.
-
If it tells you anything, George Takei has called off the dogs.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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/)
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/ (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/)
-
M'lady, Luis... props.
Happy Easter to all.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html (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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html (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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
goopo
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
"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 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.
-
"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
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?)
-
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? :bolt:
-
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?
-
Cool! Now can we get back to the business of blaming all the troubles in the world on you? :bolt:
Hey... my white privilege suffered through a 40-year suspension thanks To Richard Nixon.
I want some sort of a exemption for that.
-
LOL...Back to being white.
That little temporary distinction has served its purpose.
You're back to being Hispanic, and better off for it.
-
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?
-
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.
-
What I don't know won't hurt me.
Bake the cake.
-
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)!
-
The check's in the mail! And...Happy Holidays (whichever are the ones you observe)!
We do both.
We are both.
-
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?
Eff 'im. It's not a wedding cake. Neil and Bob (groan!) could be business partners. Make the friggin' cake and be done with it. Or not. (Sorry, I always get wishy washy on Fridays.)
-
LOL!
My thoughts precisely.
-
(http://nierocks.areavoices.com/files/2012/04/passover.jpg) (http://www.roflcovers.com/covers-images/download/holiday-events-happy-easter-religion-religious-cross-lord-god-jesus-best-top-free-tumblr-facebook-timeline-cover-banner-photo-image-for-fb.jpg)
-
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?
It's up to the baker. If he doesn't care to ask (and presumably doesn't care to know), then he'll bake the cake.
If he has a problem with it, morally speaking, then he might say that he'll bake the cake, but won't add the verbiage. Or not. His choice, entirely.
The use of state police power to force a person to violate his conscience, no matter how wrong a temporary majority may believe that person to be, is tyrannical.
The truth is, people used to work things out like this by choosing who to deal with voluntarily, or agreeing to disagree, and moving on. Today, they sue.
-
The truth is, people used to work things out like this by choosing who to deal with voluntarily, or agreeing to disagree, and moving on. Today, they sue.
Yes, but first they must become outraged and call in support to help them in their rage. Instant and widespread communication and ready enablers. What a combo.
-
It's up to the baker. If he doesn't care to ask (and presumably doesn't care to know), then he'll bake the cake.
If he has a problem with it, morally speaking, then he might say that he'll bake the cake, but won't add the verbiage. Or not. His choice, entirely.
The use of state police power to force a person to violate his conscience, no matter how wrong a temporary majority may believe that person to be, is tyrannical.
The truth is, people used to work things out like this by choosing who to deal with voluntarily, or agreeing to disagree, and moving on. Today, they sue.
And as those lawsuits begin to mount up as a result of a law that was (may still be) too broad, the courts will begin to define the parameters of the exchanges between people of faith who own businesses and those who may challenge their faith by their actions, and the next thing we know, the complaint will be that the Courts wrote laws again.
It's inevitable.
-
mass wrote above:
[[ I find your pretzel logic fascinating, frankly. You are a professed libertarian and you don't know the answer to that question? ]]
I thought "pretzel logic" was a tool of EVERY "libertarian".... ;)
-
Luis wrote above:
[[ I'm uncomfortable with the idea of basing secular laws on religious beliefs ]]
Then you'd be at odds with this guy:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams
-
It's up to the baker. If he doesn't care to ask (and presumably doesn't care to know), then he'll bake the cake.
If he has a problem with it, morally speaking, then he might say that he'll bake the cake, but won't add the verbiage. Or not. His choice, entirely.
The use of state police power to force a person to violate his conscience, no matter how wrong a temporary majority may believe that person to be, is tyrannical.
The truth is, people used to work things out like this by choosing who to deal with voluntarily, or agreeing to disagree, and moving on. Today, they sue.
Gosh, a voice of sanity. Thank you.
-
Luis wrote above:
[[ I'm uncomfortable with the idea of basing secular laws on religious beliefs ]]
Then you'd be at odds with this guy:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams
Two things.
That's not a law by any measure of the definition of the word.
Made for a certain type of individual does not translate into crafted strictly to reflect the religious beliefs of those individuals.
So then, anyone who claims to be an amoral atheist can't be forced to live under and be bound by the letter of our Constitution?
-
Luis wrote above:
[[ I'm uncomfortable with the idea of basing secular laws on religious beliefs ]]
Then you'd be at odds with this guy:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams
As an aside, and in concert with your post, atheist homosexuals wanting a wedding cake to be baked have no reason to respect that baker's religious freedoms enshrined in the Constirution since said Constitution does not apply to them.
-
Luis wrote above:
[[ I'm uncomfortable with the idea of basing secular laws on religious beliefs ]]
Then you'd be at odds with this guy:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams
John Adams was far more religious than many of his peers and such an interpretation isn't surprising. But that perception has been used on these forums for several years, almost always to justify Christian political goals. Would it be equally as pertinent in justifying, say, Sharia law or certain Mormon practices? While the 14th Amendment restricts only government entities from most (not all) discrimination, it does not prevent government from enacting laws to restrict discrimination.
As this excellent thread has shown however is that there are legitimate concerns from both sides when the religious rights of individuals conflict with the laws against discrimination. For me the issue is less selling a product routinely kept in inventory, rather requiring a business to use its creative abilities to sell services that would conflict with the owner's religious principles.
Obama's EEOC has concluded Muslim drivers can refuse to transport alcohol due to their religious principles. Muslim cabbies are still refusing to pick up passengers who have been drinking, or carrying alcohol. Even seeing-eye dogs have been refused by Muslims.
It's an issue that the courts will have to work with, and I doubt state and federal courts will agree on any of the aspects of these complex challenges.
-
Nothing all that complex about it.
Just another aspect of Obamas fundemental tranformation as he openly promised he would do.
We are currently living in 1936, redux.
-
Eff 'im. It's not a wedding cake. Neil and Bob (groan!) could be business partners. Make the friggin' cake and be done with it. Or not. (Sorry, I always get wishy washy on Fridays.)
But what if it was "Bruce and Pierre?"
:scared smiley:
-
Nothing all that complex about it.
Just another aspect of Obamas fundemental tranformation as he openly promised he would do.
We are currently living in 1936, redux.
Disagree. Yes Obama is certainly furthering his goals, but these issues have been around since reconstruction days, and after the 1964 Act, thousands of decisions have been made concerning discrimination in employment and services in the private sector. It only escapes complexity if all laws prohibiting discrimination are all found to be unconstitutional when challenged under religious principles. But then there's that darn old Muslim thingy,,,
-
(http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/liberal-logic-101-1626-500x416.jpg)
-
Disagree. Yes Obama is certainly furthering his goals, but these issues have been around since reconstruction days, and after the 1964 Act, thousands of decisions have been made concerning discrimination in employment and services in the private sector. It only escapes complexity if all laws prohibiting discrimination are all found to be unconstitutional when challenged under religious principles. But then there's that darn old Muslim thingy,,,
I'm thinking that since Lawrence v. Texas happened in 2003, Dubya must have been secretly transforming America in concert with the gay agenda people.
-
But what if it was "Bruce and Pierre?"
:scared smiley:
Then everybody is going straight to Hell. They're making a nice room up right now! :amen:
-
I'm thinking that since Lawrence v. Texas happened in 2003, Dubya must have been secretly transforming America in concert with the gay agenda people.
000hehehehe
-
And as those lawsuits begin to mount up as a result of a law that was (may still be) too broad, the courts will begin to define the parameters of the exchanges between people of faith who own businesses and those who may challenge their faith by their actions, and the next thing we know, the complaint will be that the Courts wrote laws again.
It's inevitable.
Hold on, now. I don't think people are suing and lawsuits building up because of this law...the suits are happening in states without the law. It's argued the whole point of the law is to prevent suits like this. Of course, there is liable to be a lawsuit to challenge the law, but it's hardly fair to blame the plethora of lawsuits (to force bakers to either bake cakes or go out of business) on this law.
-
(http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/liberal-logic-101-1626-500x416.jpg)
Right on! If it were understood Atheism is a religion unto itself, a lot of this BS would never have happened.
-
Hold on, now. I don't think people are suing and lawsuits building up because of this law...the suits are happening in states without the law. It's argued the whole point of the law is to prevent suits like this. Of course, there is liable to be a lawsuit to challenge the law, but it's hardly fair to blame the plethora of lawsuits (to force bakers to either bake cakes or go out of business) on this law.
Are you serious?
That is the exact opposite of what's going to happen here.
Neil and Bob are black gay men, and they want to rent a hotel room somewhere in Indiana. The owner refuses them the room on the basis of his religious values, they sue him claiming that the religion angle was BS, and that he denied them the room because they are black.
-
As this excellent thread has shown however is that there are legitimate concerns from both sides when the religious rights of individuals conflict with the laws against discrimination.
How nice it must be to be a commie leftist. They hate all religions and love the state. There is no conflict for them, no need to develop 10-page threads discussing the matter. Just screw the people who have religious objections, jail them if they won't get out of the way.
Simplicity.
-
Right on! If it were understood Atheism is a religion unto itself, a lot of this BS would never have happened.
Memes?
Really?
So then, if Indiana has a true Religious Freedom Restoration Act, then Mormons can engage in plural marriage and Rastafarians can smoke weed with impunity.
Right?
Wrong.
What we have here is a possible violation of the Establishment Clause, since it elevates a religion above all others by giving them impunity against possible legal action stemming from his refusal to serve gay couples, yet atheists who simply don't like gays and refuse to serve them enjoy no similar protection under the law. So the law creates an inequity.
-
Are you serious?
That is the exact opposite of what's going to happen here.
Neil and Bob are black gay men, and they want to rent a hotel room somewhere in Indiana. The owner refuses them the room on the basis of his religious values, they sue him claiming that the religion angle was BS, and that he denied them the room because they are black.
I am quite serious. The law in Indiana is irrelevant. You see the attempt at the law in Indiana as the basis for a whole bunch of lawsuits, yet the lawsuits we've been talking about predate laws trying to head them off. I don't disagree there will be lawsuits to challenge what Indiana is trying to do, and there probably will be for the states with similar laws too, but the suits we are seeing today are because gays have butthurt, and are using existing laws to force shopkeepers to do what they want. We've been talking about bakers making cakes, but this applies equally to florists and owners of venues who have already been sued into oblivion.
They didn't need a RFRA in Indiana to file those suits.
-
Memes?
Really?
I have to go with the arrow in the quiver. If Dan had just posted the verbiage I would have said the same thing.
-
So then, if Indiana has a true Religious Freedom Restoration Act, then Mormons can engage in plural marriage and Rastafarians can smoke weed with impunity.
Right?
Wrong.
Trivia question: Why was the 1994 RFRA passed in the first place? (Hint: Peyote)
What we have here is a possible violation of the Establishment Clause, since it elevates a religion above all others by giving them impunity against possible legal action stemming from his refusal to serve gay couples, yet atheists who simply don't like gays and refuse to serve them enjoy no similar protection under the law. So the law creates an inequity.
That is a good point, and I maintain if Atheism were properly understood to be a belief system, IOW a "religion," then the gays are the ones violating the law like mad.
-
Trivia question: Why was the 1994 RFRA passed in the first place? (Hint: Peyote)
That is a good point, and I maintain if Atheism were properly understood to be a belief system, IOW a "religion," then the gays are the ones violating the law like mad.
Scalia and Rehnquist overturned the 1993 (not 1994) RFRA..
-
Trivia question: Why was the 1994 RFRA passed in the first place? (Hint: Peyote)
That is a good point, and I maintain if Atheism were properly understood to be a belief system, IOW a "religion," then the gays are the ones violating the law like mad.
And at the end of the day, atheist are the ones being discriminated against since they enjoy no protection for an identical act that others in the State have immunity for based on the State recognizing their standing based on religious beliefs.
From the Legal Information Institute:
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
-
Scalia and Rehnquist overturned the 1993 (not 1994) RFRA..
I defer to your superior scholarship on this. I never much cared about it until it became a "thing" when it was determined the Federal law doesn't apply to states. When that happened, gays with butthurt started suing good people into oblivion. That was my point.
-
I defer to your superior scholarship on this. I never much cared about it until it became a "thing" when it was determined the Federal law doesn't apply to states. When that happened, gays with butthurt started suing good people into oblivion. That was my point.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/01/many-liberals-sensible-retreat-from-the-old-justice-brennanaclu-position-on-religious-exemptions/?postshare=2671428068605177
-
I defer to your superior scholarship on this. I never much cared about it until it became a "thing" when it was determined the Federal law doesn't apply to states. When that happened, gays with butthurt started suing good people into oblivion. That was my point.
BTW... the majority of the Bill of Rights now applies to the States by way of the Incorporation Doctrine.
-
I defer to your superior scholarship on this. I never much cared about it until it became a "thing" when it was determined the Federal law doesn't apply to states. When that happened, gays with butthurt started suing good people into oblivion. That was my point.
Don't mind me.
I'm just one of those non-assimilating immigrants.
-
Don't mind me.
I'm just one of those non-assimilating immigrants.
:laugh:
-
Don't mind me.
I'm just one of those non-assimilating immigrants.
Don't ever "assimilate." It'd ruin you. :laugh:
-
Don't ever "assimilate." It'd ruin you. :laugh:
Unrelated post.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/15606_10200272308565931_8162196400393337096_n.jpg?oh=1a80a9e34e150c80ff1e1049a51850ad&oe=55B12A00&__gda__=1438190491_b1f2c8acd6199ef59b0906a14dbc3c13)
Two story house on the right, about half way down the block, with the balcony.
I was born there.
Needs a paint job badly.
Or a demo crew.
-
Unrelated post.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/15606_10200272308565931_8162196400393337096_n.jpg?oh=1a80a9e34e150c80ff1e1049a51850ad&oe=55B12A00&__gda__=1438190491_b1f2c8acd6199ef59b0906a14dbc3c13)
Two story house on the right, about half way down the block, with the balcony.
I was born there.
Needs a paint job badly.
Or a demo crew.
On the balcony...? :beer:
-
On the balcony...? :beer:
Could be.
I've always been somewhat unconventional.
-
On the balcony...? :beer:
Or, perhaps the conception?