|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | Going back to describing the situation with analogies, to me the analogy is to gun manufacturers. And in fact, you can't tell me that there aren't Christians who work for Colt, Smith & Wesson, etc., so I'm sure it's ripe as well.
Just to use Colt as an example, some of Colt's products will be used in actions the Christian employees (or even owners?) would unambiguously agree is a sin -- murder, robbery, etc.
And in fact, I'm sure there is a history of litigation (AH or LS can confirm) of victims suing gun manufacturers for culpability when their products are used in the commission of a crime. I'm also sure (again, others can confirm) that the defense in such cases has been, "Hey, we just manufacture the things; we have no involvement or control over how they are used once they leave our hands."
I'm also sure this has been litigated, appealed, and upheld at least once by a higher (even the Supreme) court, confirming that the manufacturer's concern over how their product is used terminates when the product is purchased by the customer.
So how is that any different from a freakin' cake? |
It would be the same if they were asked to manufacture a gun specifically for the purpose they don't agree with (let's say murder). Then I would think they would say no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AuraStar
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Jun 2001
Posts: 657
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Since yesterday, the Indian legislature have proposed added language in the legislation (pending a vote in the House and the governors signature) which states that the law does not, "Authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing [based on] sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service."
What the new language means is the law has been transformed from a law to protect “Religious Freedom” to a law which will give special protections for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”. If passed, then we are back to square one and it is almost if the law was repealed.
The new “fix” would allow the state to prosecute Christians criminally for denying gay weddings their professional affirmation. The amended language would criminalize religious objectors; it could send Christians to jail.
The “fix “maintains the religious liberty law in Indiana, but basically states 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.” The fix also says the law cannot establish a defense against not just civil actions but also “criminal prosecution.”
The “fix” allows exemptions only for churches, minsters, and overtly religious organizations, but not for Christians who run for-profit businesses (despite the fact Christian their work is their ministry—they do not hang up their faith after church on Sunday).
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. It guts the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and empowers the government to impose punishing fines on people for following their religious beliefs about marriage.
I want to point out again, Indiana’s RFRA law in its original, unaltered language (which mirrors Federal legislation), is not about discrimination. It is about empowering people to confront government overreach. The intent of the law by those who wrote it is a shield to protect one’s belief from government. It never was intended as a sword to be used against anyone else, and it cannot be. It is only a defense, albeit not an iron-clad defense at that. RFRA law has only ever been used for defense, and defense is all it can ever be used for.
Let’s look at the 14th Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note that the “privileges or immunities” term which John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 used in that section, is just another way to refer to constitutionally enumerated rights, most of these rights listed in the Bill of Rights.
State religious freedom laws not only compliment constitutional protections by protecting business owners who have religious convictions, but they also help to prevent a state from unthinkingly violating the 14th Amendment
In states which have had RFRA statutes, no business has been given the right to discriminate against gay customers, or anyone else. The point of RFRA is not to discriminate against gay Americans. It is supposed to prevent the government from discriminating against religious Americans.
It’s not discrimination when you are acting on what you deeply believe; it only becomes discrimination when you act with malice.
_________________
“Love is the force that ignites the spirit and binds teams together.” - Phil Jackson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Wilt wrote: | | It's interesting how AuraStar's last two posts start by saying that this law doesn't give businesses the right to discriminate and end by saying that this law does give businesses the right to discriminate. |
I think his point was that it gives businesses the right to choose whether they have to service events they don't agree with.
Either way you slice that, there are going to be casualties of policy. |
Yeah, whether they wish to discriminate or not. I can't understand why this is so difficult. Again, trolling for it's sake. |
Why do you and 24 keep saying trolling? I'm not trolling at all.
I just recognize that there is a huge distinction between what I am ok with personally, and how I would create policy. The policy can't reasonably be "pass the ringfiger sniff test".
I don't want someone to ever be able to say no to providing service for a gay wedding. But I do want a dog lover to be able to say no to creating collateral for an organization pushing for the legal slaughter of dogs for human consumption.
It's not a question of morality. It's a question of law. How do I, as a policymaker, allow one and not the other? |
From 24
It is pretty clear that you enjoy taking the "devil's advocate" position on discussions regarding race and other forms of discrimination (not to mention a few hot button basketball related topics). It is also pretty clear from your use of language that you are pretty intelligent, so the idea that you are just obtuse doesn't seem likely. Your use of a lot of semantics, straw men, weasel words, feigned misunderstanding or ignorance, and other intellectually disingenuous arguments indicates either someone who is looking to advocate obliquely for some pretty reprehensible people and positions (but understands the danger of just honestly doing so), or you just really like to yank chains on issues you know are easy to rile people up over.
All of that in your last two posts alone. That's why. |
You both have it wrong. I'm not taking the Devil's Advocate route.
What you're failing to recognize is that the only thing that matters in this discussion is how a policy or law would solve the problem.
Your feelings, 24's feelings and my feelings on how mean something is, is pointless in a discussion about the impact of a policy or law.
It is very often the case that what we believe personally is not truly enforceable in a legal context as a matter of law. Again, all discrimination seems wrong yes? But in making policy, discrimination (on all fronts) is sometimes needed.
I think that's where you both are unfortunately on the wrong track as ot relates to my intentions. I give about two bum pimples about your feelings, I care only about how you intend to legislate them without unintended consequences (which is hard to do but what is actually interesting discussion) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AuraStar wrote: | Since yesterday, the Indian legislature have proposed added language in the legislation (pending a vote in the House and the governors signature) which states that the law does not, "Authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing [based on] sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service."
What the new language means is the law has been transformed from a law to protect “Religious Freedom” to a law which will give special protections for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”. If passed, then we are back to square one and it is almost if the law was repealed.
The new “fix” would allow the state to prosecute Christians criminally for denying gay weddings their professional affirmation. The amended language would criminalize religious objectors; it could send Christians to jail.
The “fix “maintains the religious liberty law in Indiana, but basically states 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.” The fix also says the law cannot establish a defense against not just civil actions but also “criminal prosecution.”
The “fix” allows exemptions only for churches, minsters, and overtly religious organizations, but not for Christians who run for-profit businesses (despite the fact Christian their work is their ministry—they do not hang up their faith after church on Sunday).
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. It guts the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and empowers the government to impose punishing fines on people for following their religious beliefs about marriage.
I want to point out again, Indiana’s RFRA law in its original, unaltered language (which mirrors Federal legislation), is not about discrimination. It is about empowering people to confront government overreach. The intent of the law by those who wrote it is a shield to protect one’s belief from government. It never was intended as a sword to be used against anyone else, and it cannot be. It is only a defense, albeit not an iron-clad defense at that. RFRA law has only ever been used for defense, and defense is all it can ever be used for.
Let’s look at the 14th Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note that the “privileges or immunities” term which John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 used in that section, is just another way to refer to constitutionally enumerated rights, most of these rights listed in the Bill of Rights.
State religious freedom laws not only compliment constitutional protections by protecting business owners who have religious convictions, but they also help to prevent a state from unthinkingly violating the 14th Amendment
In states which have had RFRA statutes, no business has been given the right to discriminate against gay customers, or anyone else. The point of RFRA is not to discriminate against gay Americans. It is supposed to prevent the government from discriminating against religious Americans.
It’s not discrimination when you are acting on what you deeply believe; it only becomes discrimination when you act with malice. |
I have to be honest, I'm not that interested in protecting antiquated religions. Religions should be required to get with the times, kind of like digital broadcast signals, A/C units, and car emissions.
I do think people should be able to choose whether to support a particular event via a business service, but, because I'm a fan of choice, not because of religious beliefs. (Thats not to say the reason for your choice can't be a religious one, if that makes sense). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | LarryCoon wrote: | Going back to describing the situation with analogies, to me the analogy is to gun manufacturers. And in fact, you can't tell me that there aren't Christians who work for Colt, Smith & Wesson, etc., so I'm sure it's ripe as well.
Just to use Colt as an example, some of Colt's products will be used in actions the Christian employees (or even owners?) would unambiguously agree is a sin -- murder, robbery, etc.
And in fact, I'm sure there is a history of litigation (AH or LS can confirm) of victims suing gun manufacturers for culpability when their products are used in the commission of a crime. I'm also sure (again, others can confirm) that the defense in such cases has been, "Hey, we just manufacture the things; we have no involvement or control over how they are used once they leave our hands."
I'm also sure this has been litigated, appealed, and upheld at least once by a higher (even the Supreme) court, confirming that the manufacturer's concern over how their product is used terminates when the product is purchased by the customer.
So how is that any different from a freakin' cake? |
It would be the same if they were asked to manufacture a gun specifically for the purpose they don't agree with (let's say murder). Then I would think they would say no. |
But they are being asked to manufacture a cake that can be used for eating. Why on earth would it matter who's doing the eating? The comparable gun analogy would be:
They are willing to manufacture a gun for a straight person that wants to murder, but they are unwilling to manufacture a gun for a gay person that wants to murder and their reasoning is that god only authorises straight people to murder but forbids gay people from being able to murder (And they would believe that when a gay person actually does murder, it isn't really murder since only straight people are allowed to murder in the eyes of god and therefore you must call that gays murder a ceremonial killing instead of murder)
In any event, Jesus made it very clear just what the penalty is for Judging Others. Man does not get to judge others. Christians believe that ONLY God has this right and to try to take away that right from God is an unforgivable sin. Jesus tells EXACTLY how those who judge will be dealt with:
| Quote: | | Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. |
So those who don't let God be the arbiter of just who can be married and try to take that decision away from God and themselves judge what is OK to God, are to be punished by receiving the measure they attempt to give (in this case, they will be judged unworthy of marriage in the eyes of god) So these folks who are trying to play what God has said is his, and ONLY his, role and make judgement of the rights of other of Gods children to marry, are in essence nullifying their own marriages in the eyes of god. They reap what they sow...
_________________
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 |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | ^ To be fair, I believe we already allowed businesses to discriminate based on gender. For instance, ladies nights where ony women get discounts and women's health clubs where I believe the law allows the businesses to deny membership to men.
It doesn't bother me personally, but legislatively, how does one allow that and then say we shouldn't discriminate? |
As I keep saying, the analogy arguments never go anywhere. Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender does not mean that we have to live in a unisex world out of some dystopian science fiction movie. Legalizing gay marriage does not mean that you have to get married to someone of the same sex if they ask. Hip hop bands don't have to include Streisand songs on their albums, and country bands don't have to include NWA songs on theirs. Women's health clubs don't hsve to open their showers to men. Bars can have ladies night promotions.
In the context of these discussions, analogies are usually a means of searching for complexities where there are none. A business can choose to cater to a specifc clientele, just as it can promote itself to a specific clientele. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakersken80
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38780
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | AuraStar wrote: | Since yesterday, the Indian legislature have proposed added language in the legislation (pending a vote in the House and the governors signature) which states that the law does not, "Authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing [based on] sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service."
What the new language means is the law has been transformed from a law to protect “Religious Freedom” to a law which will give special protections for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”. If passed, then we are back to square one and it is almost if the law was repealed.
The new “fix” would allow the state to prosecute Christians criminally for denying gay weddings their professional affirmation. The amended language would criminalize religious objectors; it could send Christians to jail.
The “fix “maintains the religious liberty law in Indiana, but basically states 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.” The fix also says the law cannot establish a defense against not just civil actions but also “criminal prosecution.”
The “fix” allows exemptions only for churches, minsters, and overtly religious organizations, but not for Christians who run for-profit businesses (despite the fact Christian their work is their ministry—they do not hang up their faith after church on Sunday).
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. It guts the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and empowers the government to impose punishing fines on people for following their religious beliefs about marriage.
I want to point out again, Indiana’s RFRA law in its original, unaltered language (which mirrors Federal legislation), is not about discrimination. It is about empowering people to confront government overreach. The intent of the law by those who wrote it is a shield to protect one’s belief from government. It never was intended as a sword to be used against anyone else, and it cannot be. It is only a defense, albeit not an iron-clad defense at that. RFRA law has only ever been used for defense, and defense is all it can ever be used for.
Let’s look at the 14th Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note that the “privileges or immunities” term which John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 used in that section, is just another way to refer to constitutionally enumerated rights, most of these rights listed in the Bill of Rights.
State religious freedom laws not only compliment constitutional protections by protecting business owners who have religious convictions, but they also help to prevent a state from unthinkingly violating the 14th Amendment
In states which have had RFRA statutes, no business has been given the right to discriminate against gay customers, or anyone else. The point of RFRA is not to discriminate against gay Americans. It is supposed to prevent the government from discriminating against religious Americans.
It’s not discrimination when you are acting on what you deeply believe; it only becomes discrimination when you act with malice. |
I have to be honest, I'm not that interested in protecting antiquated religions. Religions should be required to get with the times, kind of like digital broadcast signals, A/C units, and car emissions.
I do think people should be able to choose whether to support a particular event via a business service, but, because I'm a fan of choice, not because of religious beliefs. (Thats not to say the reason for your choice can't be a religious one, if that makes sense). |
Its called Scientology my friend...Have you had an e-meter reading lately?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | ^ To be fair, I believe we already allowed businesses to discriminate based on gender. For instance, ladies nights where ony women get discounts and women's health clubs where I believe the law allows the businesses to deny membership to men.
It doesn't bother me personally, but legislatively, how does one allow that and then say we shouldn't discriminate? |
As I keep saying, the analogy arguments never go anywhere. Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender does not mean that we have to live in a unisex world out of some dystopian science fiction movie. Legalizing gay marriage does not mean that you have to get married to someone of the same sex if they ask. Hip hop bands don't have to include Streisand songs on their albums, and country bands don't have to include NWA songs on theirs. Women's health clubs don't hsve to open their showers to men. Bars can have ladies night promotions.
In the context of these discussions, analogies are usually a means of searching for complexities where there are none. A business can choose to cater to a specifc clientele, just as it can promote itself to a specific clientele. |
Isn't the example of a gay wedding an analogy to portray the shortcomings of RFRA? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
2015 years later and dude hasn't came back yet
If I was Jesus I would NEVER come back to this place. No way..look at how little Love we have. We have to make Laws to allow each other to marry.. That isn't religion.. That is HATE! A human that stops a marriage between consenting adults is filled with HATE, not Love. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | Going back to describing the situation with analogies, to me the analogy is to gun manufacturers. And in fact, you can't tell me that there aren't Christians who work for Colt, Smith & Wesson, etc., so I'm sure it's ripe as well.
Just to use Colt as an example, some of Colt's products will be used in actions the Christian employees (or even owners?) would unambiguously agree is a sin -- murder, robbery, etc.
And in fact, I'm sure there is a history of litigation (AH or LS can confirm) of victims suing gun manufacturers for culpability when their products are used in the commission of a crime. I'm also sure (again, others can confirm) that the defense in such cases has been, "Hey, we just manufacture the things; we have no involvement or control over how they are used once they leave our hands."
I'm also sure this has been litigated, appealed, and upheld at least once by a higher (even the Supreme) court, confirming that the manufacturer's concern over how their product is used terminates when the product is purchased by the customer.
So how is that any different from a freakin' cake? |
Well, actually, a manufacturer can be held liable for foreseeable uses of a product. In the case of firearms, Congress passed a law shielding manufacturers from liability for non-defective products. A lot of state legislatures have done the same. Even before then, the lawsuits generally failed because the courts would not extend the duty of care so far that it would effectively ban the sale of firearms (or any weapon, for that matter).
Again, analogies confuse the issues, rather than clarify them. If you sell cakes, you should sell them to anyone. That doesn't mean that you have to endorse a gay wedding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | ^ To be fair, I believe we already allowed businesses to discriminate based on gender. For instance, ladies nights where ony women get discounts and women's health clubs where I believe the law allows the businesses to deny membership to men.
It doesn't bother me personally, but legislatively, how does one allow that and then say we shouldn't discriminate? |
As I keep saying, the analogy arguments never go anywhere. Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender does not mean that we have to live in a unisex world out of some dystopian science fiction movie. Legalizing gay marriage does not mean that you have to get married to someone of the same sex if they ask. Hip hop bands don't have to include Streisand songs on their albums, and country bands don't have to include NWA songs on theirs. Women's health clubs don't hsve to open their showers to men. Bars can have ladies night promotions.
In the context of these discussions, analogies are usually a means of searching for complexities where there are none. A business can choose to cater to a specifc clientele, just as it can promote itself to a specific clientele. |
Isn't the example of a gay wedding an analogy to portray the shortcomings of RFRA? |
No. It's an application, not an analogy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 30679
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | LarryCoon wrote: | Going back to describing the situation with analogies, to me the analogy is to gun manufacturers. And in fact, you can't tell me that there aren't Christians who work for Colt, Smith & Wesson, etc., so I'm sure it's ripe as well.
Just to use Colt as an example, some of Colt's products will be used in actions the Christian employees (or even owners?) would unambiguously agree is a sin -- murder, robbery, etc.
And in fact, I'm sure there is a history of litigation (AH or LS can confirm) of victims suing gun manufacturers for culpability when their products are used in the commission of a crime. I'm also sure (again, others can confirm) that the defense in such cases has been, "Hey, we just manufacture the things; we have no involvement or control over how they are used once they leave our hands."
I'm also sure this has been litigated, appealed, and upheld at least once by a higher (even the Supreme) court, confirming that the manufacturer's concern over how their product is used terminates when the product is purchased by the customer.
So how is that any different from a freakin' cake? |
It would be the same if they were asked to manufacture a gun specifically for the purpose they don't agree with (let's say murder). Then I would think they would say no. |
Try a different analogy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | ^ To be fair, I believe we already allowed businesses to discriminate based on gender. For instance, ladies nights where ony women get discounts and women's health clubs where I believe the law allows the businesses to deny membership to men.
It doesn't bother me personally, but legislatively, how does one allow that and then say we shouldn't discriminate? |
As I keep saying, the analogy arguments never go anywhere. Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender does not mean that we have to live in a unisex world out of some dystopian science fiction movie. Legalizing gay marriage does not mean that you have to get married to someone of the same sex if they ask. Hip hop bands don't have to include Streisand songs on their albums, and country bands don't have to include NWA songs on theirs. Women's health clubs don't hsve to open their showers to men. Bars can have ladies night promotions.
In the context of these discussions, analogies are usually a means of searching for complexities where there are none. A business can choose to cater to a specifc clientele, just as it can promote itself to a specific clientele. |
Isn't the example of a gay wedding an analogy to portray the shortcomings of RFRA? |
No. It's an application, not an analogy. |
Fair. But I think some of the examples (and even some of the wilder ones) are trying to account for various applications to cover for any unintended consequences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | ^ To be fair, I believe we already allowed businesses to discriminate based on gender. For instance, ladies nights where ony women get discounts and women's health clubs where I believe the law allows the businesses to deny membership to men.
It doesn't bother me personally, but legislatively, how does one allow that and then say we shouldn't discriminate? |
As I keep saying, the analogy arguments never go anywhere. Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender does not mean that we have to live in a unisex world out of some dystopian science fiction movie. Legalizing gay marriage does not mean that you have to get married to someone of the same sex if they ask. Hip hop bands don't have to include Streisand songs on their albums, and country bands don't have to include NWA songs on theirs. Women's health clubs don't hsve to open their showers to men. Bars can have ladies night promotions.
In the context of these discussions, analogies are usually a means of searching for complexities where there are none. A business can choose to cater to a specifc clientele, just as it can promote itself to a specific clientele. |
Isn't the example of a gay wedding an analogy to portray the shortcomings of RFRA? |
No. It's an application, not an analogy. |
Fair. But I think some of the examples (and even some of the wilder ones) are trying to account for various applications to cover for any unintended consequences. |
As they should. Intended and unintended consequences of laws are important. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's not discrimination unless you act with malice? Man, I should just quit my profession right now... and someone should tell my clients who lost their jobs simply because they are gay, religious, black, female, etc. that they need to give their verdicts and settlements back to their ex-employers because some poster on LG named Aurastar says so.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AuraStar wrote: | Since yesterday, the Indian legislature have proposed added language in the legislation (pending a vote in the House and the governors signature) which states that the law does not, "Authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing [based on] sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service."
What the new language means is the law has been transformed from a law to protect “Religious Freedom” to a law which will give special protections for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”. If passed, then we are back to square one and it is almost if the law was repealed.
The new “fix” would allow the state to prosecute Christians criminally for denying gay weddings their professional affirmation. The amended language would criminalize religious objectors; it could send Christians to jail.
The “fix “maintains the religious liberty law in Indiana, but basically states 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.” The fix also says the law cannot establish a defense against not just civil actions but also “criminal prosecution.”
The “fix” allows exemptions only for churches, minsters, and overtly religious organizations, but not for Christians who run for-profit businesses (despite the fact Christian their work is their ministry—they do not hang up their faith after church on Sunday).
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. It guts the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and empowers the government to impose punishing fines on people for following their religious beliefs about marriage.
I want to point out again, Indiana’s RFRA law in its original, unaltered language (which mirrors Federal legislation), is not about discrimination. It is about empowering people to confront government overreach. The intent of the law by those who wrote it is a shield to protect one’s belief from government. It never was intended as a sword to be used against anyone else, and it cannot be. It is only a defense, albeit not an iron-clad defense at that. RFRA law has only ever been used for defense, and defense is all it can ever be used for.
Let’s look at the 14th Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. [b]No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/b]
Note that the “privileges or immunities” term which John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 used in that section, is just another way to refer to constitutionally enumerated rights, most of these rights listed in the Bill of Rights.
State religious freedom laws not only compliment constitutional protections by protecting business owners who have religious convictions, but they also help to prevent a state from unthinkingly violating the 14th Amendment
In states which have had RFRA statutes, no business has been given the right to discriminate against gay customers, or anyone else. The point of RFRA is not to discriminate against gay Americans. It is supposed to prevent the government from discriminating against religious Americans.
It’s not discrimination when you are acting on what you deeply believe; it only becomes discrimination when you act with malice. |
It's amazing how people want to go the Constitution when they think it makes their point. The COTUS is only a starting point for the courts to set precedent for present and future cases. In the case of the 14th amendment, the court almost immediately went off base from what the framers of wanted as it was specifically designed to protect the rights of one group and one group only, blacks in a nation that had recently enslaved the vast majority of them and marginalized the rest. Almost immediately the Pro-business SCOTUS went off and ruled that corporations were "persons," and started using the 14th as a way to protect business while allowing Jim Crow to become entrenched.
So, frankly, quoting that as some sort of justification for your support of bigotry is IMO, pathetic.
_________________
“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 |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^Your other points aside, the framers of the constitution had nothing to do with the 14th amendment. Remember, the framers of the constitution were entirely fine with slavery, discrimination and the like.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerSanity wrote: | | ^Your other points aside, the framers of the constitution had nothing to do with the 14th amendment. Remember, the framers of the constitution were entirely fine with slavery, discrimination and the like. |
I meant the congress that debated and framed the amendment. it is precisely because of the framers of the bill of rights' smarmy views on Slavery that I do not reserve the term exclusively for them.
_________________
“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 |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AuraStar wrote: | Since yesterday, the Indian legislature have proposed added language in the legislation (pending a vote in the House and the governors signature) which states that the law does not, "Authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing [based on] sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service."
What the new language means is the law has been transformed from a law to protect “Religious Freedom” to a law which will give special protections for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”. If passed, then we are back to square one and it is almost if the law was repealed. |
I appreciate your honesty. There were a lot of people on the political right who were claiming that this statute had nothing to do with LGBT issues. That was the standard response from Fox News and the GOP presidential wannabes. At least you have the decency to admit that, without authorizing discrimination against homosexuals, "we are back to square one and it is almost [as] if the law was repealed."
Yes, you are exactly right. The GOP is trying to save face by limiting the statute to a religious freedom provision, saying "See? This is all that it ever was!" People like you know better.
| AuraStar wrote: | | The new “fix” would allow the state to prosecute Christians criminally for denying gay weddings their professional affirmation. The amended language would criminalize religious objectors; it could send Christians to jail. |
Incorrect. The statute does not criminalize anything.
| AuraStar wrote: | | The “fix “maintains the religious liberty law in Indiana, but basically states 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.” The fix also says the law cannot establish a defense against not just civil actions but also “criminal prosecution.” |
Right, but first there must be a criminal law that allows a prosecution.
| AuraStar wrote: | | I want to point out again, Indiana’s RFRA law in its original, unaltered language (which mirrors Federal legislation), is not about discrimination. |
Unless it happens to authorize discrimination against homosexuals, that is. Anyway, as I pointed out previously, it does not actually mirror the federal legislation. That's another Fox News talking point that wasn't accurate.
| AuraStar wrote: | Let’s look at the 14th Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note that the “privileges or immunities” term which John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 used in that section, is just another way to refer to constitutionally enumerated rights, most of these rights listed in the Bill of Rights. |
Well, no, it wasn't, but there isn't any dispute today that the first amendment applies to the states. The fourteenth amendment privileges and immunities clause has always been something of an oddity. It has never been clear exactly what it means, especially in light of the Article IV privileges and immunities clause.
| AuraStar wrote: | | State religious freedom laws not only compliment constitutional protections by protecting business owners who have religious convictions, but they also help to prevent a state from unthinkingly violating the 14th Amendment |
If a state violates the fourteenth amendment, you don't need a statute to do something about it.
| AuraStar wrote: | | It’s not discrimination when you are acting on what you deeply believe; it only becomes discrimination when you act with malice. |
So sincere bigotry is okay as long as it isn't malicious. Gotcha. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote: | | In the case of the 14th amendment, the court almost immediately went off base from what the framers of wanted as it was specifically designed to protect the rights of one group and one group only, blacks in a nation that had recently enslaved the vast majority of them and marginalized the rest. |
Right. Despite granting equal protection of the laws to all citizens, the fourteenth amendment was really designed to protect only the rights of blacks. That makes sense.
Yes, one of the major purposes of the fourteenth amendment was to protect the rights of freed slaves in the aftermath of the Civil War. No, that was not the only purpose. The Civil War wasn't just about slavery, and neither was Reconstruction. In particular, the Civil War and Reconstruction established the supremacy of the national government and the federal Constitution over the right of states to follow their own path and to engage in nullification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | AuraStar wrote: | Since yesterday, the Indian legislature have proposed added language in the legislation (pending a vote in the House and the governors signature) which states that the law does not, "Authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing [based on] sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service."
What the new language means is the law has been transformed from a law to protect “Religious Freedom” to a law which will give special protections for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”. If passed, then we are back to square one and it is almost if the law was repealed. |
I appreciate your honesty. There were a lot of people on the political right who were claiming that this statute had nothing to do with LGBT issues. That was the standard response from Fox News and the GOP presidential wannabes. At least you have the decency to admit that, without authorizing discrimination against homosexuals, "we are back to square one and it is almost [as] if the law was repealed."
Yes, you are exactly right. The GOP is trying to save face by limiting the statute to a religious freedom provision, saying "See? This is all that it ever was!" People like you know better.
| AuraStar wrote: | | The new “fix” would allow the state to prosecute Christians criminally for denying gay weddings their professional affirmation. The amended language would criminalize religious objectors; it could send Christians to jail. |
Incorrect. The statute does not criminalize anything.
| AuraStar wrote: | | The “fix “maintains the religious liberty law in Indiana, but basically states 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.” The fix also says the law cannot establish a defense against not just civil actions but also “criminal prosecution.” |
Right, but first there must be a criminal law that allows a prosecution.
| AuraStar wrote: | | I want to point out again, Indiana’s RFRA law in its original, unaltered language (which mirrors Federal legislation), is not about discrimination. |
Unless it happens to authorize discrimination against homosexuals, that is. Anyway, as I pointed out previously, it does not actually mirror the federal legislation. That's another Fox News talking point that wasn't accurate.
| AuraStar wrote: | Let’s look at the 14th Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note that the “privileges or immunities” term which John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 used in that section, is just another way to refer to constitutionally enumerated rights, most of these rights listed in the Bill of Rights. |
Well, no, it wasn't, but there isn't any dispute today that the first amendment applies to the states. The fourteenth amendment privileges and immunities clause has always been something of an oddity. It has never been clear exactly what it means, especially in light of the Article IV privileges and immunities clause.
| AuraStar wrote: | | State religious freedom laws not only compliment constitutional protections by protecting business owners who have religious convictions, but they also help to prevent a state from unthinkingly violating the 14th Amendment |
If a state violates the fourteenth amendment, you don't need a statute to do something about it.
| AuraStar wrote: | | It’s not discrimination when you are acting on what you deeply believe; it only becomes discrimination when you act with malice. |
So sincere bigotry is okay as long as it isn't malicious. Gotcha. |
Bravo!
AuraStar's last comment is the most telling. It's the whole, "it's OK if I discriminate against others as long as I am convinced I am right". At it's it core it's malicious. The message is that my thoughts, feelings and rights are more important than those of those I don't like or agree with - that's maliciousness at it's core. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote: | | In the case of the 14th amendment, the court almost immediately went off base from what the framers of wanted as it was specifically designed to protect the rights of one group and one group only, blacks in a nation that had recently enslaved the vast majority of them and marginalized the rest. |
Right. Despite granting equal protection of the laws to all citizens, the fourteenth amendment was really designed to protect only the rights of blacks. That makes sense.
Yes, one of the major purposes of the fourteenth amendment was to protect the rights of freed slaves in the aftermath of the Civil War. No, that was not the only purpose. The Civil War wasn't just about slavery, and neither was Reconstruction. In particular, the Civil War and Reconstruction established the supremacy of the national government and the federal Constitution over the right of states to follow their own path and to engage in nullification. |
It's been a while since I read it, but my information of the 14th comes from David Kluger's book. "Simple Justice." He spent a great deal of time laying the legal framework for the role of the Constitution on race in American Jurisprudence.
If I remember correctly, a reading of the minutes of the debate shows clearly that the 14th had one purpose and one purpose only and that was to protect the rights of blacks in America. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the intent was clear, no matter the outcome.
_________________
“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 |
|
|
Wilt
LG Contributor
Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13727
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
So if water fountains had signs that said "Colored Only.....(out of love)," it would have been fine, I guess.  Since no malice is involved?
The argument that discrimination without malice should be legal is one of the weirdest things I've read on the internets lately.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wilt wrote: | So if water fountains had signs that said "Colored Only.....(out of love)," it would have been fine, I guess. Since no malice is involved?
The argument that discrimination without malice should be legal is one of the weirdest things I've read on the internets lately. |
Yeah, it's just a bizarro conumdrum for Christians. They Judge and discriminate and act and think in a bigoted fashion but become deeply offended when called on it.
_________________
“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 |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wilt wrote: | So if water fountains had signs that said "Colored Only.....(out of love)," it would have been fine, I guess. Since no malice is involved?
The argument that discrimination without malice should be legal is one of the weirdest things I've read on the internets lately. |
So you don't agree with allowing women's only health clubs and gyms? Separate sex public restrooms?
It's not that weird. What's weird is figuring out where the line should be drawn and who should get to draw it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
