| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wilt wrote: | | Looks like the backlash to this law was swift and significant. Now Pence says he'd support a "clarification" bill that he hopes will be introduced next week. He didn't elaborate what he means by "clarification." |
Hopefully, much like the 21st amendment "clarified" the 18th.
| Quote: | | As others have said, this law was primarily a result of the anti-gay marriage fervor on the right. |
I'm reminded of how the anti-evolutionists keep trying to introduce legislation couched as "academic freedom" and whatever other things they can think of to avoid calling it what it really is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nordvader wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | Can't Chick-fil-A use this same argument to refuse service to gays? |
How could you seriously argue that it offends your religious beliefs to serve a gay person? |
How could you seriously argue that it offends your religious beliefs to serve a black person?
"In South Carolina, a BBQ restaurant owner claimed that he was within his rights to refuse service to blacks based on his religious beliefs. In the case brought before the Supreme Court, Maurice Bessinger stated that his religion required him to keep black people from eating in his restaurant, although he was perfectly OK with taking their money, so long as they ordered their food to-go."
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/sc-restaurant-owner-refuses-serve-blacks-cites-religious-beliefs/
Yes, this happened in 1968 but I can see this type of ignorance happening today as well. |
Cheesecake Factory Saturday morning March 28th 2015 Boulder, Co
Hostess leads the guests to their table.
A black couple was in the booth agjacent to theirs.
They immediately refused their seat and demanded to be seated somewhere else.
The hostess was shocked and wasn't sure what to do next.
They moved themselves to a different section entirely and demanded to be served there.
They were not shy about their racism in any way whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: | | It's the natural next step to the Hobby Lobby decision. As Hobby Lobby demonstrated, you make corporations "people," there are lot more problems than just unlimited campaign contributions. It is also relatively impossible to reconcile the 14th amendment with the 1st amendment if you decide that businesses and corporations have the same freedom of speech/religious practice rights as people. |
But, as you well know I am sure. The 14th amendment has been used to protect the rights of businesses and corporations far more often than it has been used to protect the group for which it was specifically intended. There has been a whole lot of dubious reconciling where that amendment goes. |
Maybe I should have said "reconcile" without being intellectually dishonest....
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What's especially peculiar about all of this is that the issue would be mostly moot if the Supreme Court rules against the gay marriage advocates. The decision is due by the end of June. The political right seems to believe that it has lost the war, but I rate it as a toss up. Regardless of what you think about gay rights and gay marriage, there is a legitimate question as to whether the Constitution requires a state to extend legal recognition to gay marriage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oliver Reed
Star Player
Joined: 28 Sep 2014
Posts: 2626
Location: Globo Gym
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ContagiousInspiration wrote: | | Nordvader wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | Can't Chick-fil-A use this same argument to refuse service to gays? |
How could you seriously argue that it offends your religious beliefs to serve a gay person? |
How could you seriously argue that it offends your religious beliefs to serve a black person?
"In South Carolina, a BBQ restaurant owner claimed that he was within his rights to refuse service to blacks based on his religious beliefs. In the case brought before the Supreme Court, Maurice Bessinger stated that his religion required him to keep black people from eating in his restaurant, although he was perfectly OK with taking their money, so long as they ordered their food to-go."
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/sc-restaurant-owner-refuses-serve-blacks-cites-religious-beliefs/
Yes, this happened in 1968 but I can see this type of ignorance happening today as well. |
Cheesecake Factory Saturday morning March 28th 2015 Boulder, Co
Hostess leads the guests to their table.
A black couple was in the booth agjacent to theirs.
They immediately refused their seat and demanded to be seated somewhere else.
The hostess was shocked and wasn't sure what to do next.
They moved themselves to a different section entirely and demanded to be served there.
They were not shy about their racism in any way whatsoever. |
I'm offended by all the offending that the people around the country are offended by.
_________________
Because we're better than you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Angie's list
Was going to commit to $40 million headquarters expansion being built in Indiana.. They have now told Indiana the expansion and doubled workforce plans are not happening...just days before it was planned to start.
http://www.ibj.com/articles/52485-angies-list-ceo-controversial-bill-sends-a-clear-message
I thought Christians loved all of their God's people? Worthless hypocrites.. I still cannot stand the tax laws that help build churches...
This is one time I really appreciate the power of capitalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | What's especially peculiar about all of this is that the issue would be mostly moot if the Supreme Court rules against the gay marriage advocates. The decision is due by the end of June. The political right seems to believe that it has lost the war, but I rate it as a toss up. Regardless of what you think about gay rights and gay marriage, there is a legitimate question as to whether the Constitution requires a state to extend legal recognition to gay marriage. |
In God we trust.. Who defines God? :) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Basketball Fan
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 24766
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ContagiousInspiration wrote: | Angie's list
Was going to commit to $40 million headquarters expansion being built in Indiana.. They have now told Indiana the expansion and doubled workforce plans are not happening...just days before it was planned to start.
http://www.ibj.com/articles/52485-angies-list-ceo-controversial-bill-sends-a-clear-message
I thought Christians loved all of their God's people? Worthless hypocrites.. I still cannot stand the tax laws that help build churches...
This is one time I really appreciate the power of capitalism. |
While I find this law garbage as much as the next person Angie's List is bankrupt everyone here in Indianapolis knows this. They asked for governmental funding despite being a private business so this is posturing on their part here.
They weren't going to actually expand(at least on their dime) anyways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oliver Reed
Star Player
Joined: 28 Sep 2014
Posts: 2626
Location: Globo Gym
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ContagiousInspiration wrote: | Angie's list
Was going to commit to $40 million headquarters expansion being built in Indiana.. They have now told Indiana the expansion and doubled workforce plans are not happening...just days before it was planned to start.
http://www.ibj.com/articles/52485-angies-list-ceo-controversial-bill-sends-a-clear-message
I thought Christians loved all of their God's people? Worthless hypocrites.. I still cannot stand the tax laws that help build churches...
This is one time I really appreciate the power of capitalism. |
Worthless Christians? So you are judging ALL Christians from the few who are bad? Sounds like hypocrisy is running rampant all over. The only thing funnier then old Bible Belts and their church stuff is when the non-believers come out with their venom and do the same exact thing. The flame continues to grow, it is so easy it's hilarious..
_________________
Because we're better than you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oliver Reed wrote: | | ContagiousInspiration wrote: | Angie's list
Was going to commit to $40 million headquarters expansion being built in Indiana.. They have now told Indiana the expansion and doubled workforce plans are not happening...just days before it was planned to start.
http://www.ibj.com/articles/52485-angies-list-ceo-controversial-bill-sends-a-clear-message
I thought Christians loved all of their God's people? Worthless hypocrites.. I still cannot stand the tax laws that help build churches...
This is one time I really appreciate the power of capitalism. |
Worthless Christians? So you are judging ALL Christians from the few who are bad? Sounds like hypocrisy is running rampant all over. The only thing funnier then old Bible Belts and their church stuff is when the non-believers come out with their venom and do the same exact thing. The flame continues to grow, it is so easy it's hilarious.. |
The ones who support this law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67720
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | I read in another thread that this isn't bigoted, merely narrow minded...  |
Cmon 24. There is a big difference between not being open minded and being discriminatory.
People should be allowed to have their opinions. But they should not be allowed to explicitly deny service on the basis of any protected class.
The fact that we cannot distinguish between the Mexican mother who would prefer her daughter marry a Mexican man, and Adolf Hitler, is disturbing and slowing our progress.
I want to be able to deny service to an organization (and its members) I don't agree with (i.e. NAMBLA) but denying service based on sexual orientation is just wrong regardless of your religion. I'm not religious so I really don't care about protecting religions. I care only about protecting the rights of people. |
LINK
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oliver Reed
Star Player
Joined: 28 Sep 2014
Posts: 2626
Location: Globo Gym
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ContagiousInspiration wrote: | | Oliver Reed wrote: | | ContagiousInspiration wrote: | Angie's list
Was going to commit to $40 million headquarters expansion being built in Indiana.. They have now told Indiana the expansion and doubled workforce plans are not happening...just days before it was planned to start.
http://www.ibj.com/articles/52485-angies-list-ceo-controversial-bill-sends-a-clear-message
I thought Christians loved all of their God's people? Worthless hypocrites.. I still cannot stand the tax laws that help build churches...
This is one time I really appreciate the power of capitalism. |
Worthless Christians? So you are judging ALL Christians from the few who are bad? Sounds like hypocrisy is running rampant all over. The only thing funnier then old Bible Belts and their church stuff is when the non-believers come out with their venom and do the same exact thing. The flame continues to grow, it is so easy it's hilarious.. |
The ones who support this law. |
I support my family and my families name. I couldn't give a groundhog's butt what some ahole legislator does in Indiana.
_________________
Because we're better than you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oliver Reed wrote: | | I couldn't give a groundhog's butt what some ahole legislator does in Indiana. |
But that didn't stop you from clicking on the link for this thread and then posting in it. I think the groundhogs are getting nervous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Oliver Reed wrote: | | I couldn't give a groundhog's butt what some ahole legislator does in Indiana. |
But that didn't stop you from clicking on the link for this thread and then posting in it. I think the groundhogs are getting nervous. |
Well, certainly their butts are....
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerSanity wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Oliver Reed wrote: | | I couldn't give a groundhog's butt what some ahole legislator does in Indiana. |
But that didn't stop you from clicking on the link for this thread and then posting in it. I think the groundhogs are getting nervous. |
Well, certainly their butts are.... |
And in reality, stating one couldn't give a groundhog's butt about legislation that can used to discriminate against others is not all that different than supporting it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oliver Reed
Star Player
Joined: 28 Sep 2014
Posts: 2626
Location: Globo Gym
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerSanity wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Oliver Reed wrote: | | I couldn't give a groundhog's butt what some ahole legislator does in Indiana. |
But that didn't stop you from clicking on the link for this thread and then posting in it. I think the groundhogs are getting nervous. |
Well, certainly their butts are.... |
I don't know, I'm interpreting your comment as some derogatory homosexual innuendo. Maybe I need to go cry about it now so I can show my support.
_________________
Because we're better than you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To be fair though, Oliver Reed's point to CI's overly and unfairly broad comment casting all Christians in the same light is spot on. CI's post is dripping in irony when he calls them hypocrites. The comment is every bit as judgmental and dismissive as the viewpoint CI derides. It's based on personal perceptions and assumptions just as any other bigoted view is.
The anti-gay sentiment may run fairly prolifically in those who hide behind Christianity and other religions, but the anti-gay sentiment is purely one of bigotry. It is not inherently tied to religion or Christianity at all. There are plenty of non-religious bigots as there are vast numbers of Christians who are entirely open to the idea of same sex union.
People like to throw the term "Religious Right" around and I totally get why they do. But people need to know there is also a "Religious Left" as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | Can't Chick-fil-A use this same argument to refuse service to gays? |
How could you seriously argue that it offends your religious beliefs to serve a gay person? In effect, you would be arguing that someone's mere existence offends your religious views. It would be a hard sell to say that someone suddenly realized that their religious beliefs had been offended for forty years. |
Religious beliefs are subject to interpretation and transform over generations. I'm sure anti-women's suffrage movements spoke of a God's intended role for women, that didn't include them having the right to vote. Plus, look no further than the Westboro Baptists on their religious views on gays and those who support them. Religion is often very intolerant, so yes, someone's mere existence would be offensive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | Can't Chick-fil-A use this same argument to refuse service to gays? |
How could you seriously argue that it offends your religious beliefs to serve a gay person? In effect, you would be arguing that someone's mere existence offends your religious views. It would be a hard sell to say that someone suddenly realized that their religious beliefs had been offended for forty years. |
Religious beliefs are subject to interpretation and transform over generations. I'm sure anti-women's suffrage movements spoke of a God's intended role for women, that didn't include them having the right to vote. Plus, look no further than the Westboro Baptists on their religious views on gays and those who support them. Religion is often very intolerant, so yes, someone's mere existence would be offensive. |
It's an inherently failed position logically. If you are working at Chick-fil-a, you have no idea whether the person you are serving at the time is gay unless they announce it. Meanwhile, it is undeniably probable that you have served countless people gay people in the past with out knowing it and without any adverse effect on you or your religious beliefs. Thus, there is no irreversible "damage" to the transaction.
You haven't been asked to condone or endorse their lifestyle. You haven't been forced to engage them in any meaningful sense of relationship.
You've simply been asked to do your job as an employee in a service industry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Van --
It wouldn't work legally. You would need to convince a court that serving food to gay people offends your religious beliefs, not just that the existence of homosexuals offends your religious beliefs. I think you may have misunderstood my earlier comment. This law doesn't give anyone the right to live in a gay-free world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If someone were to claim that they refuse to service gays because it offends their religious beliefs, then I think it's completely fair to demand they show consistency in their actions and show that they also don't service those who have sex out of wedlock, which also runs counter to their religious edicts. Good luck running a successful business based on servicing those 8 people who are determined to be religiously pure...
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We cater to religions too much.
Let people believe what they want, we just need to enforce behaviors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AuraStar
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Jun 2001
Posts: 657
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The law is necessary to help protect freedom of religious conscious and freedom of association.
The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law.
Granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld. However, under the Indiana RFRA, those who provide creative services for weddings, such as photographers, florists or bakers, could claim that religious freedom protects them from local nondiscrimination laws.
Like other religious objectors, they would have their day in court, as they should, permitting them to argue that the government is improperly requiring them to violate their religion by participating (in their view) in a celebration that their religion does not allow.
For those calling religious freedom laws somehow intolerant or "hatred," I pose these questions to you:
Should a Muslim caterer be forced by a court to provide a pork menu?
Should a Jewish baker be forced to sell a cake to a person requesting "I Love Hitler" be written on it?
Should a Black photographer be forced to memorialize a KKK themed wedding?
Time to get real. Everyone in this country has the right to worship as they see fit. Nobody is refusing to sell a cake to or take pictures of people who happen to be gay. They're simply saying they cannot take part in a ceremony which, for them, represents a sin. Furthermore, RFRA's will help to curb frivolous or unnecessary litigation by those who purposely target small business owners in order to try and force the small business owner to do something against their beliefs and put them out of business (i.e. the Christian bakery owner in Oregon who was purposely targeted in by homosexuals to make a wedding cake or the florist in Washington who were purposely targeted by homosexuals to provide flowers for a gay wedding, and the owners have been forced to close their business for standing up for their beliefs).
What kind of country are we becoming that those folks who have deep-seeded beliefs are called "intolerant" while those suing them are called "tolerant?" Ridiculous!
_________________
“Love is the force that ignites the spirit and binds teams together.” - Phil Jackson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AuraStar wrote: | The law is necessary to help protect freedom of religious conscious and freedom of association.
The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law.
Granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld. However, under the Indiana RFRA, those who provide creative services for weddings, such as photographers, florists or bakers, could claim that religious freedom protects them from local nondiscrimination laws.
Like other religious objectors, they would have their day in court, as they should, permitting them to argue that the government is improperly requiring them to violate their religion by participating (in their view) in a celebration that their religion does not allow.
For those calling religious freedom laws somehow intolerant or "hatred," I pose these questions to you:
Should a Muslim caterer be forced by a court to provide a pork menu?
Should a Jewish baker be forced to sell a cake to a person requesting "I Love Hitler" be written on it?
Should a Black photographer be forced to memorialize a KKK themed wedding?
Time to get real. Everyone in this country has the right to worship as they see fit. Nobody is refusing to sell a cake to or take pictures of people who happen to be gay. They're simply saying they cannot take part in a ceremony which, for them, represents a sin. Furthermore, RFRA's will help to curb frivolous or unnecessary litigation by those who purposely target small business owners in order to try and force the small business owner to do something against their beliefs and put them out of business (i.e. the Christian bakery owner in Oregon who was purposely targeted in by homosexuals to make a wedding cake or the florist in Washington who were purposely targeted by homosexuals to provide flowers for a gay wedding, and the owners have been forced to close their business for standing up for their beliefs).
What kind of country are we becoming that those folks who have deep-seeded beliefs are called "intolerant" while those suing them are called "tolerant?" Ridiculous! |
Just SMH at this rightnut drivel. Honestly, highly ironic given DMR's last post in this thread.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
