how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?
Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.
Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.
No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.
Businesses and individuals are allowed to descriminate all the time. You are just taking issue was very specific form of descrimination because you personally dislike it. You can be refused service for not wearing a shirt, you can be refused service for wearing a shirt deemed objectionable, you can be refused service for being obnoxious/rude, you can be refused service for a host of reasons.
If a baker is a huge fan/alum of school/team X and the archrival of X (school/team Y) wins a championship and somebody wants the baker to make a huge extravagant celebratory cake for school/team Y but the baker doesn't want to do it can the baker be forced to do it?
The legal side of this is actually less interesting to me than the statement the Indiana legislature and executive has just broadcast to homosexual couples and supporters of Civil Rights nation-wide (really worldwide, if anyone even cares about this outside the US).
The entire universe actually...and maybe all parallel universes too. I mean, if we're talking about overreaction, we gotta go that far.
The legal side of this is actually less interesting to me than the statement the Indiana legislature and executive has just broadcast to homosexual couples and supporters of Civil Rights nation-wide (really worldwide, if anyone even cares about this outside the US).
The entire universe actually...and maybe all parallel universes too. I mean, if we're talking about overreaction, we gotta go that far.
People actually are interested in Civil Rights issues, you know. I can tell you think this little bill is 'no big deal' or something, and I respect your right to your opinion, I just don't agree with you.
how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?
Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.
Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.
No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.
Discriminating someone based on their (Reglious) beliefs still is. As far as I can remember.
It's not discriminating against your religious beliefs. If that were the case, christians should be murdering all gays, women who have had sex before marriage, virgins who get raped and can't prove it, children who disobey their parents, and the list goes on. Those are religious beliefs. However, there isn't anywhere in the bible that says you should treat LGBT people with disrespect and kick them out of your places of business. Pretty sure that there is actually something about loving... *shrugs*
The legal side of this is actually less interesting to me than the statement the Indiana legislature and executive has just broadcast to homosexual couples and supporters of Civil Rights nation-wide (really worldwide, if anyone even cares about this outside the US).
The entire universe actually...and maybe all parallel universes too. I mean, if we're talking about overreaction, we gotta go that far.
People actually are interested in Civil Rights issues, you know. I can tell you think this little bill is 'no big deal' or something, and I respect your right to your opinion, I just don't agree with you.
How many businesses do you think are in Indiana that don't want to provide goods or services to LGBT people and can prove to a state court in Indiana that doing so incurs a substantial burden to their ability to abide by their religious beliefs? Because those specific business owners are the only ones that would be allowed to descriminate against LGBT customers. Are there any?
Sigvatr wrote: I like how people immediately jump to the conclusion that this was passed with the sole intention to actively oppress gays. When in fact, this merely allows people to deny service and go to court about it with the court then deciding whether religious freedom has been violated or not.
But nah, just keep shoving down agendas. Screw rational thinking. We don't need those pesky courts deciding on what's right or not, we know it better!
Indeed.
The legal text doesn't mention homosexuality at all, and has been linked. It has NOTHING to do with gays, it has even less to do with GenCon I can't see how they would be affected frankly.
However that doesn't stop the GenCon organisers for saying its about homophobia and threatening to move the venue, because they have freedom of speech too.
That doesn't make what they are saying rational.
@Prestor Jon: Religion is like tennis without a net. In principal, you can say you are offended by just about anything, and draw a straight line from the offending issue to some passage in some old, old book.
how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?
Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.
Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.
No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.
Discriminating someone based on their (Reglious) beliefs still is. As far as I can remember.
It's not discriminating against your religious beliefs. If that were the case, christians should be murdering all gays, women who have had sex before marriage, virgins who get raped and can't prove it, children who disobey their parents, and the list goes on. Those are religious beliefs. However, there isn't anywhere in the bible that says you should treat LGBT people with disrespect and kick them out of your places of business. Pretty sure that there is actually something about loving... *shrugs*
Are the only valid religious beliefs those that are part of "established" relgions like Christianity and have important texts that are really old? Could somebody have a religious believe that does in fact preclude them from providing service to LGBT customers or any other specific type of customer?
how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?
Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.
Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.
No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.
Businesses and individuals are allowed to descriminate all the time. You are just taking issue was very specific form of descrimination because you personally dislike it. You can be refused service for not wearing a shirt, you can be refused service for wearing a shirt deemed objectionable, you can be refused service for being obnoxious/rude, you can be refused service for a host of reasons.
If a baker is a huge fan/alum of school/team X and the archrival of X (school/team Y) wins a championship and somebody wants the baker to make a huge extravagant celebratory cake for school/team Y but the baker doesn't want to do it can the baker be forced to do it?
Out of curiosity, have you ever been kicked out of a place of business because you're christian? Refused services because you wear a cross necklace? I have. I've been kicked out of places because of who I am and I can tell you it's very dehumanizing. It's one thing to say "I don't like that team so I don't wanna bake that cake" but it's another thing entirely to say "I don't like the person that you are so I don't want to bake you a cake because you're a sinner". Do you see the difference now?
jasper76 wrote: @Prestor Jon: Religion is like tennis without a net. In principal, you can say you are offended by just about anything, and draw a straight line from the offending issue to some passage in some old, old book.
So religions require old books? Does being offended constitute a substantial burden to adhering to one's religious beliefs? Because that's the legal standard in the bill passed in Indiana. It doesn't say it's legal to refuse service to people who offend you, only people that require the propriety to take on a substantial burden to their religious beliefs. That seems to be a higher bar than simple subjective offensiveness.
jasper76 wrote: @Prestor Jon: Religion is like tennis without a net. In principal, you can say you are offended by just about anything, and draw a straight line from the offending issue to some passage in some old, old book.
So religions require old books? Does being offended constitute a substantial burden to adhering to one's religious beliefs? Because that's the legal standard in the bill passed in Indiana. It doesn't say it's legal to refuse service to people who offend you, only people that require the propriety to take on a substantial burden to their religious beliefs. That seems to be a higher bar than simple subjective offensiveness.
Religions don't require anything but someone to say their beliefs constitute a religion. I can invent a religion in 10 minutes, say that the core belief is not interacting with some group of people, and Bam! Done! Hopefully, for their own sake, Indiana has put some thought into where to draw the line. I don't know how Indiana defines a religion. Federal-wise it seems like religions are usally organizations that have qualified for a federal tax exemption.
how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?
Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.
Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.
No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.
Discriminating someone based on their (Reglious) beliefs still is. As far as I can remember.
It's not discriminating against your religious beliefs. If that were the case, christians should be murdering all gays, women who have had sex before marriage, virgins who get raped and can't prove it, children who disobey their parents, and the list goes on. Those are religious beliefs. However, there isn't anywhere in the bible that says you should treat LGBT people with disrespect and kick them out of your places of business. Pretty sure that there is actually something about loving... *shrugs*
Are the only valid religious beliefs those that are part of "established" relgions like Christianity and have important texts that are really old? Could somebody have a religious believe that does in fact preclude them from providing service to LGBT customers or any other specific type of customer?
Legally yes, respectively no. I have tons of christian friends. I also have tons of friends who are pagan, wiccan, muslims, satanists, atheists, agnostics and many I don't even remember. It doesn't make their religious views invalid to have a law regulating the equal treatment of everyone.
Out of curiosity... did you know that "religious freedom" was also exercised during the 1960's to try to justify the dehumanization of african americans?
...The legal text doesn't mention homosexuality at all, and has been linked. It has NOTHING to do with gays....
You cannot be that naive. Nobody over the age of six is that naive.
A law doesn't have to deliberately spell out which groups/individuals it targets for it to have an affect on those groups. This law was written so that certain people could refuse service to a group of people whom they have a history of religious objections to. I'm reasonably certain that the law wasn't written with the intent that it would be used against Yankees fans...
...The legal text doesn't mention homosexuality at all, and has been linked. It has NOTHING to do with gays....
You cannot be that naive. Nobody over the age of six is that naive.
A law doesn't have to deliberately spell out which groups/individuals it targets for it to have an affect on those groups. This law was written so that certain people could refuse service to a group of people whom they have a history of religious objections to. I'm reasonably certain that the law wasn't written with the intent that it would be used against Yankees fans...
You'd be surprised... I know a lot of "adults" who believe it. I believe the book Wizards First Rule has a quote for such an occasion.
"Wizard's First Rule: people are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."
~Terry Goodkind
how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?
Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.
Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.
No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.
Businesses and individuals are allowed to descriminate all the time. You are just taking issue was very specific form of descrimination because you personally dislike it. You can be refused service for not wearing a shirt, you can be refused service for wearing a shirt deemed objectionable, you can be refused service for being obnoxious/rude, you can be refused service for a host of reasons.
If a baker is a huge fan/alum of school/team X and the archrival of X (school/team Y) wins a championship and somebody wants the baker to make a huge extravagant celebratory cake for school/team Y but the baker doesn't want to do it can the baker be forced to do it?
Out of curiosity, have you ever been kicked out of a place of business because you're christian? Refused services because you wear a cross necklace? I have. I've been kicked out of places because of who I am and I can tell you it's very dehumanizing. It's one thing to say "I don't like that team so I don't wanna bake that cake" but it's another thing entirely to say "I don't like the person that you are so I don't want to bake you a cake because you're a sinner". Do you see the difference now?
Dude I can kick you out of my just because I don't like your face.
how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?
Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.
Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.
No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.
Businesses and individuals are allowed to descriminate all the time. You are just taking issue was very specific form of descrimination because you personally dislike it. You can be refused service for not wearing a shirt, you can be refused service for wearing a shirt deemed objectionable, you can be refused service for being obnoxious/rude, you can be refused service for a host of reasons.
If a baker is a huge fan/alum of school/team X and the archrival of X (school/team Y) wins a championship and somebody wants the baker to make a huge extravagant celebratory cake for school/team Y but the baker doesn't want to do it can the baker be forced to do it?
Out of curiosity, have you ever been kicked out of a place of business because you're christian? Refused services because you wear a cross necklace? I have. I've been kicked out of places because of who I am and I can tell you it's very dehumanizing. It's one thing to say "I don't like that team so I don't wanna bake that cake" but it's another thing entirely to say "I don't like the person that you are so I don't want to bake you a cake because you're a sinner". Do you see the difference now?
Nope. It's the same principle. You want somebody to provide a service against his/her will, that's not cool. It an unfortunate fact of life that there are narrow minded people out there and life would be better if there weren't but creating govt sanctioned thought police that decide what is a good thought/opinion and what is a bad thought/opinion isn't the answer. Proprietors that deliberately hurt their business over arbitrary whims and descriminatory opinions are never going to be as successfull as business owners who are open minded and try to reach as many customers as possible and ensure their satisfaction. If a baker doesn't want to make you a cake you don't have the right to call in the power of the state to force the baker to bake for you. You right to contract is inviolate. Being able to choose whom you work for and under what terms is a fundamental principle of a free society. The state doesn't have the right to force you to take a job you don't want, to work for somebody you don't want to work for. You have ownership over yourself and you get to decide for whom you provide labor/goods/services. That's freedom, it isn't always pretty, but it's a human right.
how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?
Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.
Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.
No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.
Businesses and individuals are allowed to descriminate all the time. You are just taking issue was very specific form of descrimination because you personally dislike it. You can be refused service for not wearing a shirt, you can be refused service for wearing a shirt deemed objectionable, you can be refused service for being obnoxious/rude, you can be refused service for a host of reasons.
If a baker is a huge fan/alum of school/team X and the archrival of X (school/team Y) wins a championship and somebody wants the baker to make a huge extravagant celebratory cake for school/team Y but the baker doesn't want to do it can the baker be forced to do it?
Out of curiosity, have you ever been kicked out of a place of business because you're christian? Refused services because you wear a cross necklace? I have. I've been kicked out of places because of who I am and I can tell you it's very dehumanizing. It's one thing to say "I don't like that team so I don't wanna bake that cake" but it's another thing entirely to say "I don't like the person that you are so I don't want to bake you a cake because you're a sinner". Do you see the difference now?
Dude I can kick you out of my just because I don't like your face.
Firstly, I'm not a dude. Secondly, yeah if you really wanted to you could and it would be just as disrespectful and silly as it sounds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: On the flip side, why would you want to give a bigot your money?
I totally agree with you on this. I'm all for voting with dollars.
how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?
Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.
Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.
No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.
Businesses and individuals are allowed to descriminate all the time. You are just taking issue was very specific form of descrimination because you personally dislike it. You can be refused service for not wearing a shirt, you can be refused service for wearing a shirt deemed objectionable, you can be refused service for being obnoxious/rude, you can be refused service for a host of reasons.
If a baker is a huge fan/alum of school/team X and the archrival of X (school/team Y) wins a championship and somebody wants the baker to make a huge extravagant celebratory cake for school/team Y but the baker doesn't want to do it can the baker be forced to do it?
Out of curiosity, have you ever been kicked out of a place of business because you're christian? Refused services because you wear a cross necklace? I have. I've been kicked out of places because of who I am and I can tell you it's very dehumanizing. It's one thing to say "I don't like that team so I don't wanna bake that cake" but it's another thing entirely to say "I don't like the person that you are so I don't want to bake you a cake because you're a sinner". Do you see the difference now?
Nope. It's the same principle. You want somebody to provide a service against his/her will, that's not cool. It an unfortunate fact of life that there are narrow minded people out there and life would be better if there weren't but creating govt sanctioned thought police that decide what is a good thought/opinion and what is a bad thought/opinion isn't the answer. Proprietors that deliberately hurt their business over arbitrary whims and descriminatory opinions are never going to be as successfull as business owners who are open minded and try to reach as many customers as possible and ensure their satisfaction. If a baker doesn't want to make you a cake you don't have the right to call in the power of the state to force the baker to bake for you. You right to contract is inviolate. Being able to choose whom you work for and under what terms is a fundamental principle of a free society. The state doesn't have the right to force you to take a job you don't want, to work for somebody you don't want to work for. You have ownership over yourself and you get to decide for whom you provide labor/goods/services. That's freedom, it isn't always pretty, but it's a human right.
So what you're saying is that if I hate all black people I can refuse service to them just because I want to.
The legal side of this is actually less interesting to me than the statement the Indiana legislature and executive has just broadcast to homosexual couples and supporters of Civil Rights nation-wide (really worldwide, if anyone even cares about this outside the US).
The entire universe actually...and maybe all parallel universes too. I mean, if we're talking about overreaction, we gotta go that far.
People actually are interested in Civil Rights issues, you know. I can tell you think this little bill is 'no big deal' or something, and I respect your right to your opinion, I just don't agree with you.
You have previously stated that you aren't interested in the legal part and that points to the actual problem: you don't want people to be equal before the law. What this law does is giving people the basis to take their issue to a court. That's the most fundamental right in a state of law. If you aren't okay with that...then you aren't okay with a state of law.
People saying that this bill allows people to deny service to certain groups have not understood the bill and need to re-read and try to understand it.
The legal side of this is actually less interesting to me than the statement the Indiana legislature and executive has just broadcast to homosexual couples and supporters of Civil Rights nation-wide (really worldwide, if anyone even cares about this outside the US).
The entire universe actually...and maybe all parallel universes too. I mean, if we're talking about overreaction, we gotta go that far.
People actually are interested in Civil Rights issues, you know. I can tell you think this little bill is 'no big deal' or something, and I respect your right to your opinion, I just don't agree with you.
You have previously stated that you aren't interested in the legal part and that points to the actual problem: you don't want people to be equal before the law. What this law does is giving people the basis to take their issue to a court. That's the most fundamental right in a state of law. If you aren't okay with that...then you aren't okay with a state of law.
People saying that this bill allows people to deny service to certain groups have not understood the bill and need to re-read and try to understand it.
I'm sorry, did these people not have the right to go to court to begin with???
I ask again, what need for this bill then?
Instead of guessing what I want, why don't I just tell you: to have sexual orientation added as a protected class to the Civil Rights Act.
how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?
Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.
Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.
No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.
Businesses and individuals are allowed to descriminate all the time. You are just taking issue was very specific form of descrimination because you personally dislike it. You can be refused service for not wearing a shirt, you can be refused service for wearing a shirt deemed objectionable, you can be refused service for being obnoxious/rude, you can be refused service for a host of reasons.
If a baker is a huge fan/alum of school/team X and the archrival of X (school/team Y) wins a championship and somebody wants the baker to make a huge extravagant celebratory cake for school/team Y but the baker doesn't want to do it can the baker be forced to do it?
Out of curiosity, have you ever been kicked out of a place of business because you're christian? Refused services because you wear a cross necklace? I have. I've been kicked out of places because of who I am and I can tell you it's very dehumanizing. It's one thing to say "I don't like that team so I don't wanna bake that cake" but it's another thing entirely to say "I don't like the person that you are so I don't want to bake you a cake because you're a sinner". Do you see the difference now?
Dude I can kick you out of my just because I don't like your face.
Firstly, I'm not a dude. Secondly, yeah if you really wanted to you could and it would be just as disrespectful and silly as it sounds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: On the flip side, why would you want to give a bigot your money?
I totally agree with you on this. I'm all for voting with dollars.
how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?
Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.
Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.
No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.
Businesses and individuals are allowed to descriminate all the time. You are just taking issue was very specific form of descrimination because you personally dislike it. You can be refused service for not wearing a shirt, you can be refused service for wearing a shirt deemed objectionable, you can be refused service for being obnoxious/rude, you can be refused service for a host of reasons.
If a baker is a huge fan/alum of school/team X and the archrival of X (school/team Y) wins a championship and somebody wants the baker to make a huge extravagant celebratory cake for school/team Y but the baker doesn't want to do it can the baker be forced to do it?
Out of curiosity, have you ever been kicked out of a place of business because you're christian? Refused services because you wear a cross necklace? I have. I've been kicked out of places because of who I am and I can tell you it's very dehumanizing. It's one thing to say "I don't like that team so I don't wanna bake that cake" but it's another thing entirely to say "I don't like the person that you are so I don't want to bake you a cake because you're a sinner". Do you see the difference now?
Nope. It's the same principle. You want somebody to provide a service against his/her will, that's not cool. It an unfortunate fact of life that there are narrow minded people out there and life would be better if there weren't but creating govt sanctioned thought police that decide what is a good thought/opinion and what is a bad thought/opinion isn't the answer. Proprietors that deliberately hurt their business over arbitrary whims and descriminatory opinions are never going to be as successfull as business owners who are open minded and try to reach as many customers as possible and ensure their satisfaction. If a baker doesn't want to make you a cake you don't have the right to call in the power of the state to force the baker to bake for you. You right to contract is inviolate. Being able to choose whom you work for and under what terms is a fundamental principle of a free society. The state doesn't have the right to force you to take a job you don't want, to work for somebody you don't want to work for. You have ownership over yourself and you get to decide for whom you provide labor/goods/services. That's freedom, it isn't always pretty, but it's a human right.
So what you're saying is that if I hate all black people I can refuse service to them just because I want to.
Well, that specific example wouldn't be allowed because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, although you could refuse to serve black people for a reason besides their blackness. That's the problem with the Civil Rights Act, it allows the govt to infringe on people's right to contract which decreases freedom and equality. Everyone should be free to be as enlightened or as bigotted as they choose, people, in general, are decent and things will get better over time as shown throughout human history. A sunset clause would have been better for the private business section of the act. Society changes over time, what was once acceptable isn't always acceptable or even possible in the future. The number of businesses in Indiana that would be willing and capable of refusing sevice to LGBT people under the new law is only going to shrink over time and that's going to happen regardless of how long the law stays on the books.
I think you would agree that you have the right to not accept a job working for a black person or any other kind of person. Likewise, a black person or any other kind of person has the right to not accept a job working for you. That's because you have ownership of your own personhood and you get to determine with whom you agree to contract out your labor. That same freedom should also be given to the other side. More freedom is better than less.
@PJ: I can also imagine the possibility of numerous anti-gay Christians opening up shop in Indiana and other states with similar laws, because they percieve that they will be able to discrimnate as they please with a friendly judicial to protect them. And then Indiana becomes a worse place for everyone not in the clique. Not saying this will happen or anything, only that its a possibility. It's not like history is some preordained path to more and more human rights. People have to demand the rights first.
...The legal text doesn't mention homosexuality at all, and has been linked. It has NOTHING to do with gays....
You cannot be that naive. Nobody over the age of six is that naive.
A law doesn't have to deliberately spell out which groups/individuals it targets for it to have an affect on those groups. This law was written so that certain people could refuse service to a group of people whom they have a history of religious objections to. I'm reasonably certain that the law wasn't written with the intent that it would be used against Yankees fans...
The bill is about religious freedom, not homosexual exclusion.
Who it is applied upon is therefore incidental, the legislation of itself has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Now as you have called me out who else can it refer to:
- Not kosher and halal preparation. aka " we wont trade for milk with your farm, because you raise pigs". yes orthodox rules can go that far.
- Hamedic jews, trading just about anything. aka " we wont trade with you because you are not a Hamedic jew". The group is so isolationist they don't want anyone in their premises, self isolationism is socially harmless and should be protected.
Some Christian, Jewish, or Moslem denomination members who might not want to support industries involved in:
- abortion
- birth control
- pornography
etc etc
Some Buddhist or Hindu denomination members who might not want to support industries involved in:
- non vegetarian produce
(and possibly some of the above mentioned also)
A lot of the religious freedom already exists but the freedom is lobsided because of protected status being unevenly enforced. A good example of this is assuming that religious freedom laws are all about Christians. Jews are also effected and are powerful lobbyists, the difference is that its socially more difficult to point fingers at some religions than others.
A law for religious freedom make the freedoms secular society and minority religions available more universally and that is a good thing.
I think you would agree that you have the right to not accept a job working for a black person or any other kind of person. Likewise, a black person or any other kind of person has the right to not accept a job working for you. That's because you have ownership of your own personhood and you get to determine with whom you agree to contract out your labor. That same freedom should also be given to the other side. More freedom is better than less.
...The legal text doesn't mention homosexuality at all, and has been linked. It has NOTHING to do with gays....
You cannot be that naive. Nobody over the age of six is that naive.
It's not naivete. It's willful blindness.
Care to quantify that in the face of the evidence presented.
I showe the legislation documents by link.
I showed other lawful applications of the law in separation to homsexuality.
I showed other beneficiaries other than the Christian right.
What evidence have you presented? Nothing. So contribute properly or stop trolling.
What happens if someone claims that a business person denied them service because they were gay based on the business persons "religious beliefs", but then the gay person then claims that the business person is then infringing on their religious beliefs, in which being gay is A-OK... hence the business person is discriminating against a protected class (their religion), rather than the unprotected class of their sexuality?
Also, how can someone who is not religious benefit from this law? If it is my deeply held belief that I will not offer my services to Christians or republicans can I point to this law as I kick these kinds of people out the door? Or is this just to protect " religious" beliefs? Or certain subsets of Christian, and as soon as other groups use the law in ways the creators didn't intend it will be killed deader than Jesus?
Just another state to put on the Do Not Disturb List. 'm sure my presence will not be missed. Say hi to Arizona, Indiana!
I'm sure the Colts, Pacers, Indy 500, Final Four, Big 10 Championship, and Three Floyds Brewing will miss you terribly..
Until they move out, too. I read today that one of the big basketball tournaments is considering moving out, as well...Final Four IIRC. I will try to find that article..
"We will work diligently to assure student-athletes competing in, and visitors attending, next week's Men's Final Four in Indianapolis are not impacted negatively by this bill. Moving forward, we intend to closely examine the implications of this bill and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce."
There's never going to be any evidence because politicians know how to lie about their motives. Saying "we hate gay people and want to punish them" is a good way to lose your next election unless you're representing a district where the bigots are a high enough percentage to give you the winning votes even when nobody else votes for you. So instead of being honest about it they present it as "religious freedom", because who could possibly want to stand in the way of freedom? That's plausible deniability, and even if someone points out the fact that discrimination will happen they can bring out the "we don't agree with discrimination, but you have to give people freedom even if they do things you don't agree with" excuses.
Now, if you stop assuming that politicians are always honest and look at the context it's pretty clear that anti-gay discrimination is the major reason behind this bill. Tiny religious minorities don't have the power to get something like this passed, so any benefit to them is just a side effect of legalizing discrimination by conservative Christians.
people, in general, are decent and things will get better over time as shown throughout human history.
The 20th Century would like to have a word with you. Looks like the 21st Century wouldn't mind a little chat after you two get through.
That same freedom should also be given to the other side. More freedom is better than less.
So you're actually agreeing with us? Then why are you arguing?
Are you saying that you think you think things were demonstrably better in the 20th century than they are now? Society has improved over time in regards to social and legal equality, I think even a cursory look at history shows that to be true.
I agree that individuals have the right to not patronize a business if they so choose. I'm not sure if both you and Freya agree that businesses also have a right to refuse the patronage of any customer.
Also, if nobody argued there wouldn't be any point to having these threads.
Out of curiosity, have you ever been kicked out of a place of business because you're christian? Refused services because you wear a cross necklace? I have. I've been kicked out of places because of who I am and I can tell you it's very dehumanizing. It's one thing to say "I don't like that team so I don't wanna bake that cake" but it's another thing entirely to say "I don't like the person that you are so I don't want to bake you a cake because you're a sinner". Do you see the difference now?
You shouldn't fixate too much on being called a sinner, according to the teachings bible we are all sinners before the lord (gay or straight). Nobody is free of sin, to be born to this world means you are flawed and sinful no matter what. We can aspire to over come our sins and be forgiven for them, but as human beings we can never truly be free of sin as long as we walk on this earth.
It sounds like the person refusing to bake a gay cake needs to listen to what's actually being said in church sermons and remove the plank in their eye first before worrying about the splinters in others.
That said I've had plenty of people attempt to chastise and insult me based on the fact that I am Christian and they were of a different religion or atheist. (heck even a different Christian denomination) But I try not to pay them much mind because the world is full a-holes who don't respect anyone but themselves.
I'm sorry, did these people not have the right to go to court to begin with???
I ask again, what need for this bill then?
As stated before: it provides religious people with a legal basis.
Let me rephrase: It provides religious people with a legal basis which by all accounts they already had to begin with, so what's the point?
Which legal basis did they have before?
If any citizen feels their First Amendment Rights have been violated in some way, they have the right to sue, don't they? That's all I was referring to.
There's never going to be any evidence because politicians know how to lie about their motives. Saying "we hate gay people and want to punish them" is a good way to lose your next election unless you're representing a district where the bigots are a high enough percentage to give you the winning votes even when nobody else votes for you. So instead of being honest about it they present it as "religious freedom", because who could possibly want to stand in the way of freedom? That's plausible deniability, and even if someone points out the fact that discrimination will happen they can bring out the "we don't agree with discrimination, but you have to give people freedom even if they do things you don't agree with" excuses.
Now, if you stop assuming that politicians are always honest and look at the context it's pretty clear that anti-gay discrimination is the major reason behind this bill. Tiny religious minorities don't have the power to get something like this passed, so any benefit to them is just a side effect of legalizing discrimination by conservative Christians.
Are there really several businesses in Indiana that want to refuse to provide goods and services to LGBT customers and believe they can meet the new legal burden of proof of substantial burden to their religious beliefs in a court of law? Seriously, I don't live in Indiana so I have no idea if this legislation is ever actually going to be come into play or not. In order for politicians to get a meaningful political benefit from passing this law they would have to believe that a good number of constituents would approve of this law and/or make use of or benefit from it. They could be wrong, politicians frequently are, but it seems to me that if there was that much anti LGBT sentiment in Indiana that it would have manifested itself in overt tangible newsworthy ways already.
If any citizen feels their First Amendment Rights have been violated in some way, they have the right to sue, don't they? That's all I was referring to.
No one has the right to sue under the First. American citizens can petition, but not sue.
If any citizen feels their First Amendment Rights have been violated in some way, they have the right to sue, don't they? That's all I was referring to.
No one has the right to sue under the First. American citizens can petition, but not sue.
People go to court to sue for violations against their First Amendment Right to freedom of religion all the time, no? I didn't mean to say that the right to go to court over violations to their Constitutional Rights was embedded within the First Amendment itself.
Some Christian, Jewish, or Moslem denomination members who might not want to support industries involved in:
- abortion
- birth control
These are the only two things on your list that maybe, possibly, might actually come up in real life. There have been news stories about Christians working in pharmacies not wanting to give customers birth control or the morning after pill, so there is the chance that someone might actually use this law to refuse to serve a heterosexual customer. But we both know that's not who the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote it. The political and cultural climate that exists in this country is such that all those other possibilities you listed (none of them even remotely possible in Indianna, where refusing to do business with customers who eat pork means you have no customers) aren't even a blip on anyone's radar. This law was made as a direct response to what conservative Christians see as a broadening of rights and an increase of acceptance for homosexuals; a group they oppose on religious grounds.
This has nothing to do with kosher delis or halal butchers.
Prestor Jon wrote: In order for politicians to get a meaningful political benefit from passing this law they would have to believe that a good number of constituents would approve of this law and/or make use of or benefit from it.
No, they just need to mobilize their partisan voters, leading to Party support.
Prestor Jon wrote: In order for politicians to get a meaningful political benefit from passing this law they would have to believe that a good number of constituents would approve of this law and/or make use of or benefit from it.
No, they they just need to mobilize their partisan voters, leading to Party support.
Lets all have a laugh together and consider the possibility that the politicians introduced and passed this law because they personally believed it was the right thing to do. Since its a somewhat local issue, I suppose it is an actual possibility. In any case, the voters are responsible for its passage, and responsible for its future.
SilverMK2 wrote: What happens if someone claims that a business person denied them service because they were gay based on the business persons "religious beliefs", but then the gay person then claims that the business person is then infringing on their religious beliefs, in which being gay is A-OK... hence the business person is discriminating against a protected class (their religion), rather than the unprotected class of their sexuality?
There isn't a contest here, either both parties in the business are mutually inclusive or exclusive.
Remember this is about non participation, and enforces the right to non participation. It isn't about enforced participation.
In the case above the potential clients religious beliefs are not relevant.
Also, how can someone who is not religious benefit from this law? If it is my deeply held belief that I will not offer my services to Christians or republicans can I point to this law as I kick these kinds of people out the door? Or is this just to protect " religious" beliefs? Or certain subsets of Christian, and as soon as other groups use the law in ways the creators didn't intend it will be killed deader than Jesus?
I mentioned this earlier, and the concept should be expanded to include any 'encoded ethos'. Trouble is that is difficult.
Do you have a code that says you cannot serve Republicans or Christians? How is it quantified?
Any number of people may have personal preferences but a coded ethos is separate to that but we must make proper distinction between membership of say a Synagogue and that of the KKK, both of which will practice separation and non participation for different reasons.
You could form a Gay Atheist Cult with tenets that do not allow trade with people of other faiths. Then you can legally refuse to serve Christians in your shop. Justifying a code that has tenets against the Republican party might be harder to justify and your defence would be laughed out of court.
Besides sexuality is already protected. If Christians walk into a gay bar and aren't welcome, they don't get to sue. It's the other way around thats not protected, and again it is not limited to or about homosexuals, or Christians for that matter. It's just the easiest example to follow due to public attention.
Lets all have a laugh together and consider the possibility that the politicians introduced and passed this law because they personally believed it was the right thing to do.
Lets all have a laugh together and consider the possibility that the politicians introduced and passed this law because they personally believed it was the right thing to do.
In the case of this law they most likely did.
Perhaps you're correct. It seems pretty certain that none of this is in the economic interest of the state.
Prestor Jon wrote: In order for politicians to get a meaningful political benefit from passing this law they would have to believe that a good number of constituents would approve of this law and/or make use of or benefit from it.
No, they they just need to mobilize their partisan voters, leading to Party support.
Lets all have a laugh together and consider the possibility that the politicians introduced and passed this law because they personally believed it was the right thing to do. Since its a somewhat local issue, I suppose it is an actual possibility. In any case, the voters are responsible for its passage, and responsible for its future.
Do you mean thought it was right in the sense that it would be met with popular acclaim or right in the sense that the politicians who voted for it personally believed that it needed to be done regardless of what their constituents might believe?
People go to court to sue for violations against their First Amendment Right to freedom of religion all the time, no?
For sure, but they are usually motivated by politics and have little traction...unless they're Christian issues; in which case they have lots of traction.
SilverMK2 wrote: What happens if someone claims that a business person denied them service because they were gay based on the business persons "religious beliefs", but then the gay person then claims that the business person is then infringing on their religious beliefs, in which being gay is A-OK... hence the business person is discriminating against a protected class (their religion), rather than the unprotected class of their sexuality?
There isn't a contest here, either both parties in the business are mutually inclusive or exclusive.
Remember this is about non participation, and enforces the right to non participation. It isn't about enforced participation.
In the case above the potential clients religious beliefs are not relevant.
However, the client is now a member of a class protected against being descriminatesd against...
Also, how can someone who is not religious benefit from this law? If it is my deeply held belief that I will not offer my services to Christians or republicans can I point to this law as I kick these kinds of people out the door? Or is this just to protect " religious" beliefs? Or certain subsets of Christian, and as soon as other groups use the law in ways the creators didn't intend it will be killed deader than Jesus?
I mentioned this earlier, and the concept should be expanded to include any 'encoded ethos'. Trouble is that is difficult.
Do you have a code that says you cannot serve Republicans or Christians? How is it quantified?
Any number of people may have personal preferences but a coded ethos is separate to that but we must make proper distinction between membership of say a Synagogue and that of the KKK, both of which will practice separation and non participation for different reasons.
You could form a Gay Atheist Cult with tenets that do not allow trade with people of other faiths. Then you can legally refuse to serve Christians in your shop. Justifying a code that has tenets against the Republican party might be harder to justify and your defence would be laughed out of court.
Besides sexuality is already protected. If Christians walk into a gay bar and aren't welcome, they don't get to sue. It's the other way around thats not protected, and again it is not limited to or about homosexuals, or Christians for that matter. It's just the easiest example to follow due to public attention.
I'm unsure why Christians would be unwelcome in a gay bar, after all, there are many gay Christians. As a straight person I have had occasion to attend a few gay barsbars and club nights (and other events) - at no point have I ever been made to feel unwelcome or uncomfortable (and I'm secure enough in my sexuality to be able to politely decline any advances made on my person).
However, that aside, I'm not even sure under what grounds a Christian would be unwelcome in a gay bar unless they were causing problems. Ejecting them "because they were ChristianChristian" should be (and is?) as against the law as ejecting someone because they were gay.
As for the rest, why do your "deeply held beliefs" get additional protections above mine? Is !y imaginary friend who tells me what to do and think not just as real as yours or something?
Sorry for all of text and random double words - my tablet is having a fit editing text...
Some Christian, Jewish, or Moslem denomination members who might not want to support industries involved in:
- abortion
- birth control
These are the only two things on your list that maybe, possibly, might actually come up in real life.
Thats enough, so even you would unwillingly agree its not therefore about homosexuality, its about religious freedom of non participation.
If the set of conditions that are covered by a bill include sexuality, abortion and birth control, and let us assume for the sake of argument it stopped there. Then the definition of the set is not sexuality.
The set is correctly defined in the bill, its is about Religious Freedom.
Freedom of expression is generally regarded as a good thing in a democratic society, you would have to go to a desperate stretch to deny religious people freedom of expression, though some here and in society at large clearly would like to do so, and post frequently with that aim.
So in a nutshell we should take the Indiana legislators word for it what the bill is about, and not the host for a role players convention.
But we both know that's not who the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote it.
Do you now. The law was written in a neutral format
It does not single out Christianity as a protected class
It does not single out sexual preference as a described target
The political and cultural climate that exists in this country is such that all those other possibilities you listed (none of them even remotely possible in Indiana, where refusing to do business with customers who eat pork means you have no customers) aren't even a blip on anyone's radar.
You need to read carefully. I didn't mention eating pork as the example, I mentioned farming pigs as the example. Sounds similar but different. If a food supplier supplies pork to its clients refusing service has no partical application.
However if the case is reversed there is.
In some interpretations of Kosher and Halal rules a farmer who produces pork cannot produce clean food at his farm even if the produce is not pork related.
So a Kosher/Halal butcher or food supplier to religious butchers might refuse to deal with a farmer who raises pigs. This happens, routinely.
This has nothing to do with kosher delis or halal butchers.
Maybe not, they are already protected indirectly. No one is going after a minority religion for 'discrimination', its not the type of fight most lawyers relish. Christians are a much easier target.
And even the militant gay lobby avoids going after Islam, though Islam has very strong and vocal homophobic elements. Westboro baptists are liberal by comparison.
This law was made as a direct response to what conservative Christians see as a broadening of rights and an increase of acceptance for homosexuals; a group they oppose on religious grounds.
It affects the timing of the new law, but legislation always come as a result of public need (though the definition of public varies).
That law will protect other religions other than Christianity, and the law will permit non-participations on other issues other than sexuality.
However the motive is slightly different to what you suggested. Increased acceptance of homosexuality is not an issue as much as homosexuality being a protected group and protection removed from Christianity in the process.
Its NOT about homosexuality, its about religion. Freedom for homosexuals is not at stake in society, freedom of expression of religion is.
As it so happens the bill in its fair wording protects several groups for several motives, examples given.
It is notable that that protection while not formally present was not needed in statute, no one would sue a kosher butcher for refusing to trade with a farm that raised pigs and also raised other animals that could be prepared for kosher.
It is when protection is available in society for some by cultural norm, but not for others that legislation is needed to enable and liberate the unprotected.
This is why the bill is justly about freedom, not repression.
Orlanth wrote: Freedom for homosexuals is not at stake in society, freedom of expression of religion is.
??
Freedom and rights for homosexuals is the Civil Rights issue of the current time. Your freedom to practice and express your religion has been Constitutionally guaranteed since the founding. Homosexuals are not even protected against discrimination by the Civil Rights Act.
However, the client is now a member of a class protected against being descriminates against...
Discrimination, in it's modern context, is an extreme word for non-participation of service. You can refuse service without 'discrimination', it happens all the time. There has to be a valid excuse, valid excuses vary.
Good examples include refusing to serve an adult legally of age to buy alcohol a drink because they have had too much already. Technically thats discrimination, as you need to discern whether a person should be served by personal judgement call.
The relevance of this is to establish the fact that one can be selective in you you have dealings with without 'bigotry' being automatically applied. You have to establish circumstances societally. Indiana state legislator is one of twenty states to have done so on the grounds covered by this thread.
Indiana legislators have decided in vote that the right to non-participation trumps the right to be served. This is the correct decision as the client can go elsewhere, whereas the trader cannot turn off their core values as easily.
It should also be noted on this level that non-participation is not hateful of itself, in fact most religions would teach against hating that which you shun.
I'm unsure why Christians would be unwelcome in a gay bar, after all, there are many gay Christians. As a straight person I have had occasion to attend a few gay bars and club nights (and other events) - at no point have I ever been made to feel unwelcome or uncomfortable (and I'm secure enough in my sexuality to be able to politely decline any advances made on my person).
Depends on the gay bar. There are homosexual extremists also, and some have a hate on for religion.
I should have been more clear.
As for the rest, why do your "deeply held beliefs" get additional protections above mine? Is !y imaginary friend who tells me what to do and think not just as real as yours or something?
Sorry for all of text and random double words - my tablet is having a fit editing text...
First God is not an imaginary friend. Though outside the charismatic community the evidence is thin enough many people have the misfortune of not seeing that. I am in the fortunate position to have witnessed enough of the miraculous to know that God is very real, too many people even those inside religious organisations have to just take that on faith.
However I do agree with you, and posted on this a few pages back, this right should be expanded to include any identifiable secular ethos. That being said most are indirectly protected anyway.
" I refuse to handle that I'm vegan" would work, though would only come up incidentally and someone else would step in. Vegans wouldn't take employment in places where they handle animal products, not if they want to use that line. But a vegan can refuse to perform an ancillary action not related to their regular work
dogma wrote: A religious person who feels unwelcome in a gay bar is likely producing their own awkwardness. In my experience gay bars are extremely welcoming.
True, but then the opposite is also true. If as homosexual walkings into a Christian cafe they will probably get served. It's the in your face activists that would cause offense.
Even so gay bars can be very polarised, but that is from knowledge of the UK, in America things may be very different.
The UK has a strong militant gay lobby and the gay pub scene can be very territorial, it depends on the local clientelle.
Orlanth wrote: Freedom for homosexuals is not at stake in society, freedom of expression of religion is.
??
Freedom and rights for homosexuals is the Civil Rights issue of the current time. Your freedom to practice and express your religion has been Constitutionally guaranteed since the founding. Homosexuals are not even protected against discrimination by the Civil Rights Act.
So you agree with me then. You just don't know it to understand it. The historical record is important but no where near as important as the present.
As you say, freedom and rights for homosexuals is the Civil Rights issue of the time, so the emphasis on freedom with regards to sexual preference is not at stake. It would be if the struggle was not won, but the initiative is certainly there.
However religious freedom is at stake because the focus is clearly elsewhere and some expressions of freedom can be mutually exclusive. Where they are mutually exclusive protection needs to be implemented to enable and maintain freedom for all.
How does this law effect landlords. Are landlords now potentially able to deny qualified tenants based on sexual orientation? Have they always been able to do so?
Doctors? Pharmacists? Hospitals? Schools? Parks? Pools? Gas Stations? Utilities?
True, but then the opposite is also true. If as homosexual walkings into a Christian cafe they will probably get served. It's the in your face activists that would cause offense.
Then maybe people should stop being an "in your face" Christian activist. As you say, the opposite is also true.
Well, yeah, they're gay bars. You should have realized how polarized they are with the adjective. Conservative Christians are likely to be mocked in such establishments.
timetowaste85 wrote: I'm sure homosexual people looking to visit Indiana will agree with you. /sarcasm
Of course they wont and I don't blame them.
But not for any valid reason, but because the media hype has raised a scare story saying that Indiana will discriminate against gays.
In actually it this is far from the truth, but the truth is not good copy for those who want a juicier headline, or the opportunity to point fingers at the GOP.
Indiana however addresses the issues of conflicting rights allowing each person to practice their own belief system without fear of litigation for standing up for their own ethos.
If anything it will result in less homophobia not more, because lawsuit bait loopholes are being closed.
Ask yourself this question, which society is going to have more social tension:
1. A society where an anti-religious activist (not necessarily homosexual) goes to a provider of a service who happens to follow a religious ethos to order a service done that conflicts with that ethos to force a dilemma. Either the vendor compromises his standards to refuses by which you may manufacture offense for a lawsuit.
True, but then the opposite is also true. If as homosexual walkings into a Christian cafe they will probably get served. It's the in your face activists that would cause offense.
Then maybe people should stop being an "in your face" Christian activist. As you say, the opposite is also true.
Maybe people should stop being "in your face" gay activists.
Wait....
We can't say that can't we.
Well, yeah, they're gay bars. You should have realized how polarized they are with the adjective. Conservative Christians are likely to be mocked in such establishments.
Actually my comments have nothing to do with Christianity, and everything to do with the gay community. You should have included the whole quote. The gay community of itself can be very polarised, there are militant gay pubs, and that causes a zone around them. Though again this may not be the case in the US, I don't know, but its very true in London.
dogma wrote: Conservative Christians are likely to be mocked in such establishments.
Also isnt mocking discrimination, full on hateful discrimination.
Why are you defending it? Are you perhaps saying its a given that Christians shouldn't be there?
Please thing about and clarify your comment.
There is a gulf between the standards you are expressing there and the legal issues.
Two examples
Christian store owner who refuses to provide a service because it is being used to promote gay values vs a Christian who gets abuse for just walking into a gay pub and is identified as such.
If the latter is just a social expectation then the former which is far more reasoned and civil should be more than a social expectation. Just adding this in for thoughts.
It goes to show that currently it is the religious who are in need of protection. Society of itself has already condemned discrimination on grounds of sexual preference. However bashing religious people is sort of trendy, a bit like 60's racism.
Orlanth wrote: Society of itself has already condemned discrimination on grounds of sexual preference. However bashing religious people is sort of trendy, a bit like 60's racism.
Perhaps its true that the zeitgeist has shifted in the UK, perhaps the US at large, and the western media. But nonetheless Indiana just enacted potential court protections for discriminatory behavior, and several states have such bills in the pipeline apparently. This is all fun when we're talking about wedding cakes and parties. But what about doctors? Schools? Pharmacies? Landlords? The stuff where discrimination and denial of service hurts people the most.
Christian store owner who refuses to provide a service because it is being used to promote gay values vs a Christian who gets abuse for just walking into a gay pub and is identified as such.
That is not the standard I expressed. Please do not misrepresent me.
Orlanth wrote: Society of itself has already condemned discrimination on grounds of sexual preference. However bashing religious people is sort of trendy, a bit like 60's racism.
Perhaps its true that the zeitgeist has shifted in the UK, perhaps the US at large, and the western media. But nonetheless Indiana just enacted potential court protections for discriminatory behavior, and several states have such bills in the pipeline apparently. This is all fun when we're talking about wedding cakes and parties. But what about doctors? Schools? Pharmacies? Landlords? The stuff where discrimination and denial of service hurts people the most.
How does being gay, or any other potentially incompatible effect a doctor's service? Or a school or pharmacist. Non-participation doesn't come into that.
You should read the legislation. The religious freedom bill is there to enshrine non-participation in legal right.
Section 9: A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim of defence in a judicial or administrative hearing...
What is 'substantial burden'? It involves being forced to do things in the workplace, or society at large which are against the tenets of the faiths concerned. It does not condone or permit hate crime.
Providing medical treatment for a homosexual/non believing/any other potential condition patient is a standard service, there is no substantial burden. There could be in some circumstances concerning gender, especially in Islam but those are already covered.
A printing company asked by a gay rights organisation, or another faith, to print flyers is being substantially burdened however, as they have the legally defensible right now not to in Indiana, and depending on the wording of the legislation in allegedly nineteen other states.
The idea that homosexuals will suddenly no longer be able to find schools or doctors because of this new law is frankly hysterical.
Also its not fair for the media to focus this entirely on the homosexual community. The more I look at this the most basic non participation will likely be interfaith. However interfaith non participation is so casual that its overlooked.
Not a single GenCon attendee will notice any kind of difference. They never were going to.
Neither of us can possibly speak for every attendee or every worker or business owner in the state.
Whilst there will be people out there willing to sit on their various views and take money from everyone, there will also always be people without compromise.
Not a single GenCon attendee will notice any kind of difference. They never were going to.
How can you possibly know this?
Because I've been to GenCon. Many times. There aren't any businesses that are going to turn anyone away. The city embraces GenCon fully.
Oh, my bad. I completely forgot that sometimes people have to travel through other towns to get to a place. What with this awesome technology we have to immediately appear wherever we want.
Oh, my bad. I completely forgot that sometimes people have to travel through other towns to get to a place. What with this awesome technology we have to immediately appear wherever we want.
Not a single GenCon attendee will notice any kind of difference. They never were going to.
How can you possibly know this?
Because I've been to GenCon. Many times. There aren't any businesses that are going to turn anyone away. The city embraces GenCon fully.
Oh, my bad. I completely forgot that sometimes people have to travel through other towns to get to a place. What with this awesome technology we have to immediately appear wherever we want.
Well, unless folks are stopping at gas stations that tackle you and demand to know your sexual orientation before you can use your credit card to fill up at the pump, the impact of this law will be extremely limited/non-existant to attendees.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That being said, I'm fine with GENCON taking a stance on this. But I don't honestly believe the law will adversely impact them, or their attendees.
Providing medical treatment for a homosexual/non believing/any other potential condition patient is a standard service, there is no substantial burden.
That may be true in the UK, but it is not true in the US. Remember the US does not have a healthcare system like the NHS, there is no such thing as a "standard service" here.
Providing medical treatment for a homosexual/non believing/any other potential condition patient is a standard service, there is no substantial burden.
That may be true in the UK, but it is not true in the US. Remember the US does not have a healthcare system like the NHS, there is no such thing as a "standard service" here.
I don't know if it holds true with EMTs, but wasn't there something a year back or so that stated the police were under no obligation to risk their lives for someone else?
Providing medical treatment for a homosexual/non believing/any other potential condition patient is a standard service, there is no substantial burden.
That may be true in the UK, but it is not true in the US. Remember the US does not have a healthcare system like the NHS, there is no such thing as a "standard service" here.
djones520 wrote: No... it really won't. A woman can go into a walmart and pick up a pack of condoms any day of the week, at any hour, just like before.
You do realize that there are other, more reliable, birth control options available, right? And that those options require a doctor to provide them?
djones520 wrote: No... it really won't. A woman can go into a walmart and pick up a pack of condoms any day of the week, at any hour, just like before.
You do realize that there are other, more reliable, birth control options available, right? And that those options require a doctor to provide them?
So are you saying condoms don't count?
Or that natural family planning is too hard to do?
djones520 wrote: No... it really won't. A woman can go into a walmart and pick up a pack of condoms any day of the week, at any hour, just like before.
You do realize that there are other, more reliable, birth control options available, right? And that those options require a doctor to provide them?
Sure, but for the sake of saying that people are actually going to have a hard time finding the pill/shot/etc... (they won't), there will always be options out there. Always. Period.
They do, but that doesn't change the fact that allowing doctors to say "Jesus told me I can't give this to you" instead of doing their job means limiting the options women have for birth control. And it means limiting it to one of the less-effective options instead of the most reliable ones.
Or that natural family planning is too hard to do?
It is, because it requires careful record keeping and data collection, doesn't work for all women (if their body isn't consistent enough in producing the necessary signs), requires huge amounts of self control, etc. The failure rate for couples who actually use it (as opposed to theoretical perfect users that rarely exist in the real world) is very high compared to alternative options, which makes it suitable only for people who would prefer not to have a child at the moment but wouldn't be too upset if they did.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Sure, but for the sake of saying that people are actually going to have a hard time finding the pill/shot/etc... (they won't), there will always be options out there. Always. Period.
So it's ok to limit people to less effective options because Jesus said so?
If you want a lack of press and a lot of white people and a lot of Christians you will enjoy this photo of the signing:
[url=http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/media-public-not-invited-to-private-signing-ceremony-for-religious-freedom-bill]
[/url]
They do, but that doesn't change the fact that allowing doctors to say "Jesus told me I can't give this to you" instead of doing their job means limiting the options women have for birth control. And it means limiting it to one of the less-effective options instead of the most reliable ones.
Then what do we have planned parenthood for? Aren't they EXPRESSLY FOR this type of thing?
And that ignores the most reliable form of birth control.
Also @Ahtman - That photo is sad and hilarious all at the same time.
Well, unless folks are stopping at gas stations that tackle you and demand to know your sexual orientation before you can use your credit card to fill up at the pump, the impact of this law will be extremely limited/non-existant to attendees.
So, what you are saying is, as long as they do not attempt to interact with people in Indiana, they are safe?
cincydooley wrote: Then what do we have planned parenthood for? Aren't they EXPRESSLY FOR this type of thing?
So it's ok to take away options as long as someone else can cover up your failure to do your job properly?
PS: did you know that many of the same people who support the right to refuse proper treatment "because Jesus said so" also want to get rid of Planned Parenthood?
No... it really won't. A woman can go into a walmart and pick up a pack of condoms any day of the week, at any hour, just like before.
But she couldn't necessarily go into a government sponsored clinic, or hospital, and pick up birth control; making it more difficult for women to acquire birth control.
Well, unless folks are stopping at gas stations that tackle you and demand to know your sexual orientation before you can use your credit card to fill up at the pump, the impact of this law will be extremely limited/non-existant to attendees.
So, what you are saying is, as long as they do not attempt to interact with people in Indiana, they are safe?
No... that is not at all what I said, in any way, shape, or form.
Is it possible to interact with someone without throwing out the fact that your gay? I manage to talk to people all the time without expressing my sexual orientation. I'm sure others can handle that as well.
But lets say you are driving to Gen Con. You're coming from the east, and need to stop for gas somewhere. Ok, so you stop at the gas station, you get out, you put your card in the machine, you pump the gas, you leave. At what point did being gay have anything to do with that? At what point did any interaction with anyone have to do with being gay? Explain to me how being gay would have caused a GenCon attendee from being provided a service there?
Is it possible to interact with someone without throwing out the fact that your gay? I manage to talk to people all the time without expressing my sexual orientation. I'm sure others can handle that as well.
People outwardly express their heterosexuality all the time. They wear clothes to flaunt the necessary characteristics constantly, they can do this because most citizens consider it to be normal.
Well, unless folks are stopping at gas stations that tackle you and demand to know your sexual orientation before you can use your credit card to fill up at the pump, the impact of this law will be extremely limited/non-existant to attendees.
So, what you are saying is, as long as they do not attempt to interact with people in Indiana, they are safe?
No... that is not at all what I said, in any way, shape, or form.
Is it possible to interact with someone without throwing out the fact that your gay? I manage to talk to people all the time without expressing my sexual orientation. I'm sure others can handle that as well.
But lets say you are driving to Gen Con. You're coming from the east, and need to stop for gas somewhere. Ok, so you stop at the gas station, you get out, you put your card in the machine, you pump the gas, you leave. At what point did being gay have anything to do with that? At what point did any interaction with anyone have to do with being gay? Explain to me how being gay would have caused a GenCon attendee from being provided a service there?
Sure, it is absolutely possible. Now it is my turn. If you go to a gas station in Indiana, should you be scared of having your service denied for paying inside with cash?
Is it possible to interact with someone without throwing out the fact that your gay? I manage to talk to people all the time without expressing my sexual orientation. I'm sure others can handle that as well.
People outwardly express their heterosexuality all the time. They wear clothes to flaunt the necessary characteristics constantly, they can do this because most citizens consider it to be normal.
Say what? Unless they're cross-dressing (which is a separate issue entirely), people tend to wear clothes because its 1) a legal requirement and 2) hopefully suited to their environment. I've never been to a department store that had homosexual and heterosexual sections for clothing. Unless it's a man in woman's clothing, you generally can't tell diddly-squat about a person's sexual orientation from what they wear.
Is it possible to interact with someone without throwing out the fact that your gay? I manage to talk to people all the time without expressing my sexual orientation. I'm sure others can handle that as well.
But lets say you are driving to Gen Con. You're coming from the east, and need to stop for gas somewhere. Ok, so you stop at the gas station, you get out, you put your card in the machine, you pump the gas, you leave. At what point did being gay have anything to do with that? At what point did any interaction with anyone have to do with being gay? Explain to me how being gay would have caused a GenCon attendee from being provided a service there?
Obviously everyone that's gay is immediately identifiable by the rainbow capes, leather suspender bear suits, or plaid flannel shirts that they wear. Plus the air around them just shimmers in a fabulous fashion at all times. And there's glitter, lots of glitter.
Is it possible to interact with someone without throwing out the fact that your gay? I manage to talk to people all the time without expressing my sexual orientation. I'm sure others can handle that as well.
But lets say you are driving to Gen Con. You're coming from the east, and need to stop for gas somewhere. Ok, so you stop at the gas station, you get out, you put your card in the machine, you pump the gas, you leave. At what point did being gay have anything to do with that? At what point did any interaction with anyone have to do with being gay? Explain to me how being gay would have caused a GenCon attendee from being provided a service there?
Obviously everyone that's gay is immediately identifiable by the rainbow capes, leather suspender bear suits, or plaid flannel shirts that they wear. Plus the air around them just shimmers in a fabulous fashion at all times. And there's glitter, lots of glitter.
djones520 wrote: No... it really won't. A woman can go into a walmart and pick up a pack of condoms any day of the week, at any hour, just like before.
You do realize that there are other, more reliable, birth control options available, right? And that those options require a doctor to provide them?
Sure, but for the sake of saying that people are actually going to have a hard time finding the pill/shot/etc... (they won't), there will always be options out there. Always. Period.
Some women need to take the pill for other medical concerns, such as endometriosis.
Well, unless folks are stopping at gas stations that tackle you and demand to know your sexual orientation before you can use your credit card to fill up at the pump, the impact of this law will be extremely limited/non-existant to attendees.
So, what you are saying is, as long as they do not attempt to interact with people in Indiana, they are safe?
No... that is not at all what I said, in any way, shape, or form.
Is it possible to interact with someone without throwing out the fact that your gay? I manage to talk to people all the time without expressing my sexual orientation. I'm sure others can handle that as well.
But lets say you are driving to Gen Con. You're coming from the east, and need to stop for gas somewhere. Ok, so you stop at the gas station, you get out, you put your card in the machine, you pump the gas, you leave. At what point did being gay have anything to do with that? At what point did any interaction with anyone have to do with being gay? Explain to me how being gay would have caused a GenCon attendee from being provided a service there?
There are things we take for granted, little gestures that do single a couple out a gay/straight/friends. It's not always a case of feeling the need to fly a flag or represent oneself.
Okay, so we dial it back a little to a situation where you have to interact with a human for the transaction. Say you need snacks, and your partner is busting for a slash, so you both hop out and head into the actual gas station.
A M/F couple could walk in together, holding hands and it wouldn't be considered in your face, a little peck on the cheek as s/he nips to the back to use the facilities, "be back soon.".
A gay couple doing the same (would that be 'throwing it out"? It's a small, basic human contact that everyone deserves if they desire it) would undoubtedly cause raised eyebrows in some circles, worse in others.
You don't have to be the living embodiment of a TV stereotype to be noticed.
Torga_DW wrote: No, i was just near-hysterically typing after your comment that you can tell a person's sexual orientation from their clothing. Which you can't.
No, that's BS. A person "hysterically typing" in response to a comment would not be so articulate. What really happened is that you didn't like my criticism of your comment, and got upset.
Section 9: A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim of defence in a judicial or administrative hearing...
What is 'substantial burden'? It involves being forced to do things in the workplace, or society at large which are against the tenets of the faiths concerned. It does not condone or permit hate crime.
Providing medical treatment for a homosexual/non believing/any other potential condition patient is a standard service, there is no substantial burden. There could be in some circumstances concerning gender, especially in Islam but those are already covered.
A printing company asked by a gay rights organisation, or another faith, to print flyers is being substantially burdened however, as they have the legally defensible right now not to in Indiana, and depending on the wording of the legislation in allegedly nineteen other states.
The idea that homosexuals will suddenly no longer be able to find schools or doctors because of this new law is frankly hysterical.
Also its not fair for the media to focus this entirely on the homosexual community. The more I look at this the most basic non participation will likely be interfaith. However interfaith non participation is so casual that its overlooked.
I guess one could think its a hysterical concept, until it actually happens. Then it won't be so funny. Unfortunately, healthcare in the US remains largely a private enterprise, and private schools are still private as far as I know, and since religion and religious beliefs are so nebulous, almost any activity in principal could be construed as a substantial burden to the free exercise of their religion.
You act as though anti-homosexual bigots who would take advantage of this new law to discriminate don't exist. Maybe things are different in the UK.
I notice you didn't say word 1 about Landlords. Have they be given a new legal avenue to discriminate against qualified homosexuals that they didn't have before? From the wording of the bill that you provided, it looks like they have (as well as doctor's, private schools, pharmacies, etc)
Are you saying that you think you think things were demonstrably better in the 20th century than they are now? Society has improved over time in regards to social and legal equality, I think even a cursory look at history shows that to be true.
I'm saying that things are always getting better is an absurd joke.
Things were not better in the 20th century based on the absolute level of killy killy. Considering the ME versio of WWIII may have started yesterday the 21st century is not off to a great start.
People saying things get better ignore what happened to the Maya, Inca, Tang, Sung, Caliphate pre Mongolia, Dacia etc. etc. etc.
Out of curiosity, have you ever been kicked out of a place of business because you're christian? Refused services because you wear a cross necklace? I have. I've been kicked out of places because of who I am and I can tell you it's very dehumanizing. It's one thing to say "I don't like that team so I don't wanna bake that cake" but it's another thing entirely to say "I don't like the person that you are so I don't want to bake you a cake because you're a sinner". Do you see the difference now?
You shouldn't fixate too much on being called a sinner, according to the teachings bible we are all sinners before the lord (gay or straight). Nobody is free of sin, to be born to this world means you are flawed and sinful no matter what. We can aspire to over come our sins and be forgiven for them, but as human beings we can never truly be free of sin as long as we walk on this earth.
It sounds like the person refusing to bake a gay cake needs to listen to what's actually being said in church sermons and remove the plank in their eye first before worrying about the splinters in others.
That said I've had plenty of people attempt to chastise and insult me based on the fact that I am Christian and they were of a different religion or atheist. (heck even a different Christian denomination) But I try not to pay them much mind because the world is full a-holes who don't respect anyone but themselves.
Women use birth control pills for a variety of reasons other than actual birth control. I saw one person in the thread mention that. Everyone seeming to side with the Dumbshit law is ignoring this fact when they say to "just buy condoms at Walmart".
And as for telling gay or straight...it has long been a stereotype that homosexual males have a particular lisp to their speak. While it isn't always the case, I have heard it on more than a handful of occasions. And even if it isn't a sure fire way to test, it does still hit the stereotype. It will be enough for a bigot to deny service.
Maybe people should stop being "in your face" gay activists.
Do you hold the same opinion regarding heterosexual activists?
I dont hold either opinion, I was commenting on yours.
There is a feeling in society that you can be "in your face" on some issues as a right, but as others it's a problem, even if both are legal.
Actually my comments have nothing to do with Christianity, and everything to do with the gay community.
Given that you are a rather vehement Christian, and conservative to boot, I think the former is a lie.
Again you cheery pick quotes out of context. I also gave examples of how non-Christians could benefit, and linked to and even quoted from the legislation itself.
Why are you defending it? Are you perhaps saying its a given that Christians shouldn't be there?
Not at all, I simply think that a conservative Christian attending a gay bar is probably trying to make a statement.
So you are making flat assumptions on someone elses personality. You don't know me chum.
You need to stop the They are a conservative Christian and therefore they think this. You don't know what others think until you know them, or at least have the courtesy to ask.
Christian store owner who refuses to provide a service because it is being used to promote gay values vs a Christian who gets abuse for just walking into a gay pub and is identified as such.
That is not the standard I expressed. Please do not misrepresent me.
It's the standard thats real. Dont assume that if a Christian walks in to a gay bar its the Christians fault. Most Christians wont necessarily know which bars are gay bars, especially if they are sheltered.
The set is correctly defined in the bill, its is about Religious Freedom
You have previously defined atheism as a religion. Would you be alright with an atheist refusing to serve a Christian, for example?
I would be alright with it.
Christian can take his/her money elsewhere...
I would be alright with it, so long as the tenet of atheism could be expressed.
So for example a religious shop owner, lets say a Moslem one because the point is equally valid could refuse to print business cars for a gay pressure group out of non participation but it would be unfair and discriminatory to refuse to serve them a sandwich for the same reason.
Your atheist can refuse to take an order to print bible tracts, on the grounds of non participation, but cannot ban Moslems from buying a sandwich because of an arbitrary hate of Moslems.
I would think that refusal to propogate religion by an atheist is a valid application of this new Law.
I used a Moslem as an example because as stated it isn't about Christianity, its about religion and all religions are covered by it. Even if you reject the idea that atheism is a faith choice you can still accept the idea that atheism is a religious opinion, for the point of view of the Law.
Providing medical treatment for a homosexual/non believing/any other potential condition patient is a standard service, there is no substantial burden.
That may be true in the UK, but it is not true in the US. Remember the US does not have a healthcare system like the NHS, there is no such thing as a "standard service" here.
You misread this. it has nothing to do with Obamacare or NHS or Medicare. Its about the simple fact that treating a patient is a standard service there is no substantial burden being added by the patients sexuality, or other criteria a religious medical professional might find uncomfortable.
The idea that homosexuals will suddenly no longer be able to find schools or doctors because of this new law is frankly hysterical.
They will be able to find both, but it will be more difficult. I imagine it will also be more difficult for women to acquire birth control.
Aquiring birth control advice and prescriptions has already settled, non participation is well established in the medical system without the new law. Abortion procedures are performed by volunteer doctors, doctors who would not do so have the right not to, most who choose not to do so on religious grounds, but that isn't an automatic criteria.
Again womens clinics exists because of different societal values on birth control. There is no change there.
Not at all, I simply think that a conservative Christian attending a gay bar is probably trying to make a statement.
I'm curious at to what the opinions would be if the roles were reversed; if a Christian baker is used by a gay individual is that "trying to make a statement"?
cincydooley wrote: Then what do we have planned parenthood for? Aren't they EXPRESSLY FOR this type of thing?
So it's ok to take away options as long as someone else can cover up your failure to do your job properly?
I'm not convinced there will be any options taken away.
PS: did you know that many of the same people who support the right to refuse proper treatment "because Jesus said so" also want to get rid of Planned Parenthood?
You're kidding me?!?!? Are you saying people that believe contraception and abortion end life are opposed to a place that primarily deals in giving contraception to people that can't afford it? That is shocking to me.
Well, unless folks are stopping at gas stations that tackle you and demand to know your sexual orientation before you can use your credit card to fill up at the pump, the impact of this law will be extremely limited/non-existant to attendees.
So, what you are saying is, as long as they do not attempt to interact with people in Indiana, they are safe?
No... that is not at all what I said, in any way, shape, or form.
Is it possible to interact with someone without throwing out the fact that your gay? I manage to talk to people all the time without expressing my sexual orientation. I'm sure others can handle that as well.
But lets say you are driving to Gen Con. You're coming from the east, and need to stop for gas somewhere. Ok, so you stop at the gas station, you get out, you put your card in the machine, you pump the gas, you leave. At what point did being gay have anything to do with that? At what point did any interaction with anyone have to do with being gay? Explain to me how being gay would have caused a GenCon attendee from being provided a service there?
There are things we take for granted, little gestures that do single a couple out a gay/straight/friends. It's not always a case of feeling the need to fly a flag or represent oneself.
Okay, so we dial it back a little to a situation where you have to interact with a human for the transaction. Say you need snacks, and your partner is busting for a slash, so you both hop out and head into the actual gas station.
A M/F couple could walk in together, holding hands and it wouldn't be considered in your face, a little peck on the cheek as s/he nips to the back to use the facilities, "be back soon.".
A gay couple doing the same (would that be 'throwing it out"? It's a small, basic human contact that everyone deserves if they desire it) would undoubtedly cause raised eyebrows in some circles, worse in others.
You don't have to be the living embodiment of a TV stereotype to be noticed.
This is all conjecture based on media hype rather than knowledge of the legislation.
Lets look at the legal reality rather than the scaremongering please.
If the clerk at the gas station noticed the attendee filling his car was gay what can he do abourt it. Refuse service?
No.
First in order to refuse service it needs to be an individual action which places 'substantial burden'.
Is it a 'substantial burden' to accept the card at the checkout?
Again no, the religious gas station clerk is not being asked to compromise his faith or standards.
Yet we already have instances where pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions because of their religion and pediatricians who have fired patients because the patient's parents were gay.
d-usa wrote: Yet we already have instances where pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions because of their religion and pediatricians who have fired patients because the patient's parents were gay.
Do you have any links to these instances? I'm just interested in what the resolutions were, and what the legal landscape looked like.
d-usa wrote: Yet we already have instances where pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions because of their religion and pediatricians who have fired patients because the patient's parents were gay.
And those acts are consequently of questionable legality.
A law doesn't prevent an offense taking place, it effects the response.
Should either refused client sue the body that refused service will have to show they have been 'substantially burdened' in order to mount that particular legal defence.
For example I cannot see the religious justification of refusing treatment to a child whose parents are gay, and if the parents sue and substantial burden is not established by the defendants lawyer the practice could be seriously out of pocket. This test case would indeed be useful.
This is probably happening because of the media hype and was not unexpected. If the media actually ran the truth about the new law rather than just tell everyone that it gives a carte blanche to refuse any service to gays then perhaps people would not be encouraged to do so.
d-usa wrote: Yet we already have instances where pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions because of their religion
Indeed. I worked a stint as a customer service rep for a big pharma company on the pharmacy support side, and I had calls from women at least 2 or 3 times a week upset because they (or their daughters) wouldn't have their prescriptions filled because the pharmacist refused. In some parts of the country this gak is rampant.
If you have a aversion to filling a prescription, you need to find another job; because that is not a reasonable accommodation any more that a muslim checkout person refusing to check out people who are buying alcohol.
Orlanth wrote: For example I cannot see the religious justification of refusing treatment to a child whose parents are gay, and if the parents sue and substantial burden is not established by the defendants lawyer the practice could be seriously out of pocket. This test case would indeed be useful.
IMO, I can see a court case going much, MUCH better for a pediatrician who "fired" a patient because the parents refused to vaccinate rather than because they were "X" (gay, hindu, jewish, pastafarian, etc)
But I do agree... depending on where such thing has occurred, if there is a law like the one in the OP on the books, it'll be a good test for everyone.
Ouze wrote: If you have a aversion to filling a prescription, you need to find another job; because that is not a reasonable accommodation any more that a muslim checkout person refusing to check out people who are buying alcohol.
If this legislation has a requirement that the person refusing service must demonstrate a "substantial burden" does this not prohibit such a refusal to provide a reasonable accommodation as you have described?
This bill, like the Federal RFRA, doesn't give you a blank check to discriminate.
While this is probably true.... how many people, particularly SBOs in Indiana don't really know that, or won't care and will still discriminate anyway?
I think it would be awesome for the first court case covering this, if the gay person, or whoever was wrongfully discriminated against used the bible against the bigoted a-hole who claims god hates gays or whatever. (As in, I do recall there being stuff in there about loving your neighbor and generally taking care of one another or some such... The new testament is all hippy stuff until the last bit, which is a bit of a downer really)
Providing medical treatment for a homosexual/non believing/any other potential condition patient is a standard service, there is no substantial burden.
That may be true in the UK, but it is not true in the US. Remember the US does not have a healthcare system like the NHS, there is no such thing as a "standard service" here.
I don't know if it holds true with EMTs, but wasn't there something a year back or so that stated the police were under no obligation to risk their lives for someone else?
Thats been established case law for decades as in mid 20th century at least.
I don't know if it holds true with EMTs, but wasn't there something a year back or so that stated the police were under no obligation to risk their lives for someone else?
Thats been established case law for decades as in mid 20th century at least.
Ouze wrote: If you have a aversion to filling a prescription, you need to find another job; because that is not a reasonable accommodation any more that a muslim checkout person refusing to check out people who are buying alcohol.
If this legislation has a requirement that the person refusing service must demonstrate a "substantial burden" does this not prohibit such a refusal to provide a reasonable accommodation as you have described?
Is there any kind of legal definition for "substantial burden" in the law? Or will " I know that I will burn forever in hell if I fill this prescription" and "filling this prescription goes against what God tells me to do and causes me to have severe mental anguish" be enough? I would think that this is exactly the point of the law, especially considering that it was already happening before there was a law that protected the practice.
So its just a ploy to get better contract terms and pull the old NFL "we're gonna move somewhere else if you don't give us a deal!" scam.
Excellent.
Sounds like it, doesn't it?
Where exactly in the letter does it even imply that, do tell?
The letter heading, the signature at the bottom and the entirely of the text between.
There are other factors though. First it's a still a way for someone in a non political position to take a swipe that the GOP. Second it generated media attention and thus valuable publicity for GenCon. Third it gives GenCon a trendy activist edge which could attract the youth.
As a move it's possibly a shrewd one, but it's inherently dishonest.
The new law will not effect GenCon and Gen Con organisers will know that, indeed they have already expressed such by saying they have received replies that all attendees would be welcome. The organiser concerned disingenuously labelled that as business opposition to the new Law, which is not the same thing.
Is there any kind of legal definition for "substantial burden" in the law? Or will " I know that I will burn forever in hell if I fill this prescription" and "filling this prescription goes against what God tells me to do and causes me to have severe mental anguish" be enough? I would think that this is exactly the point of the law, especially considering that it was already happening before there was a law that protected the practice.
Begs the question as to how we weigh moral burden vs. ethical burden vs. physical burden. Is there anything that puts them in a hierarchy of importance?
d-usa wrote: Yet we already have instances where pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions because of their religion and pediatricians who have fired patients because the patient's parents were gay.
And? So? Go to another pharmacist. Big whup. I've also seen pharmacists fired for such.
So its just a ploy to get better contract terms and pull the old NFL "we're gonna move somewhere else if you don't give us a deal!" scam.
Excellent.
Sounds like it, doesn't it?
Where exactly in the letter does it even imply that, do tell?
Everything about the letter screams blackmail.
"we're all a tizzy but we're staying because everyone there's awesome, but hey the contract is being negotiated 5 years ahead of time so ya better be nice or another place will!"
Hogwash.
Are you saying that you think you think things were demonstrably better in the 20th century than they are now? Society has improved over time in regards to social and legal equality, I think even a cursory look at history shows that to be true.
I'm saying that things are always getting batter is an absurd joke.
Things were not better in the 20th century based on the absolute level of killy killy. Considering the ME versio of WWIII may have started yesterday the 21st century is not off to a great start.
People saying things get better ignore what happened to the Maya, Inca, Tang, Sung, Caliphate pre Mongolia, Dacia etc. etc. etc.
Different parts of the world, different cultures are going to evolve and progress differently. Was there less equality in US society in 1950 than there is now? Yes. Was there even less equality in 1850 than there was is 1950? Yes. Our society has gotten more equal over time.
Same thing is true in Europe. The UK is much more equal now than it was in the 15th century. The 16th had improvements over the 15th and so on.
Parts of the world lag behind the US and EU that's true. But parts of the world have always lagged behind for various reasons. The ME went centuries without the same kind of changes in other parts of the world because until the oil boom there in the mid 20th century there really wasn't much impetus to get involved there. The interior of the African continent is underdeveloped because for most of human history it was really dangerously difficult for people who didn't already live there to get there.
I don't think it's reasonable to base quality of life solely on the level of global deaths form wars. There's always been a war going on somewhere. Wars in the 20th century killed a lot of people but at the time they occurred they involved more humans that have ever been alive before and higher levels of technology than had ever existed before. Wars got more lethal for the same reasons that life in Paris in 1920 was demonstrably better than life in Paris in 1720. Advances in labor rights, equality, legal rights, technology, medicine, economic mobility, etc. can't all be discarded because international wars became more lethal.
d-usa wrote: Is there any kind of legal definition for "substantial burden" in the law? Or will " I know that I will burn forever in hell if I fill this prescription" and "filling this prescription goes against what God tells me to do and causes me to have severe mental anguish" be enough? I would think that this is exactly the point of the law, especially considering that it was already happening before there was a law that protected the practice.
One definition was the Sherbert Test that is applicable in Federal cases concerning claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act;
In Sherbert, the Court set out a three-prong test for courts to use in determining whether the government has violated an individual's constitutionally-protected right to the free exercise of religion.
1) The first prong investigates whether government has burdened the individual's free exercise of religion. If government confronts an individual with a choice that pressures the individual to forego a religious practice, whether by imposing a penalty or withholding a benefit, then the the government has burdened the individual's free exercise of religion.
2) However, under this test not all burdens placed on religious exercise are unconstitutional. If the first prong is passed, the government may still constitutionally impose the burden on the individual's free exercise if the government can show
it possesses some compelling state interest that justifies the infringement; and
no alternative form of regulation can avoid the infringement and still achieve the state's end.
One of the key components of today’s Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. But what is RFRA and how does it apply to cases involving Obamacare and discrimination against same-sex couples?
The federal version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act dates back to 1993, when it was passed by Congress after a controversial Supreme Court decision in 1990 angered liberals and conservatives. But after Congress passed RFRA, the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the Act couldn’t be applied to states.
Currently, at least 22 states have their own versions of RFRA laws, as a response to the 1997 Supreme Court decision.
Here is the back story: In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), two American Indians who worked as private drug rehab counselors ingested peyote as part of religious ceremonies conducted by the Native American Church, and they were subsequently fired. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the firing, with Justice Antonin Scalia saying that using a religious exemption in conflict of a valid law “would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.”
A near unanimous Congress passed RFRA in 1993 and President Bill Clinton signed the law. RFRA said that “governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification” and “the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.”
The compelling interest test dated back to another Supreme Court decision, Sherbert v. Verner, from 1963. The Sherbert test said that if a person claimed a sincere religious belief, and a government action placed a substantial burden on that belief, the government needed to prove a compelling state interest, and that it pursued that action in the least burdensome way.
But after Congress passed RFRA, the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the Act couldn’t be applied to states. In the City of Boerne v. Flores case, a majority led by Justice Anthony Kennedy found that Congress had exceeded its constitutional powers by enacting RFRA, because Congress couldn’t determine the way in which states could enforce RFRA’s restrictions.
So two current Justices, Scalia and Kennedy, are key players in the RFRA debate. But in Monday’s Hobby Lobby decision, it was two different different Justices, Alito and Ginsburg, who dominated the opinion.
In addition to the Hobby Lobby case, RFRA was at the center of a controversy in Arizona and New Mexico over the rights of same-sex couples.
Republican lawmakers in Arizona in February 2014 had decided to pass a state RFRA law that potentially legalized discrimination against gays by businesses that sold goods and services, but Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the law, after a national debate.
The Arizona legislature acted after a court in neighboring New Mexico in 2013 decided that a photographer who refused to document a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony had violated New Mexico’s public accommodations laws. RFRA was also involved in that case, which was declined by the Supreme Court.
In the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood combined case in front of the Supreme Court, RFRA was involved in the Conestoga Wood part of the decision.
In Hobby Lobby Stores v. Burwell, Hobby Lobby, a craft store chain, and its sister company, Mardel Christian bookstore, want an exemption from an Obamacare requirement that it provide insurance coverage for morning-after pills and similar emergency birth control methods and devices.
In Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Health and Human Services Department. Conestoga is a Mennonite family-owned, profit-making business, and it claims that the ACA’s birth control mandate violates the company’s rights under the First Amendment and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
One important point was if the Supreme Court would give profit-making corporations a constitutional right under RFRA to an exemption from laws that must be obeyed by everyone in the general public. In its decision, the Court limited this right to closely held corporations.
At the state level this appears to still be a developing area of the law, but I would be surprised at any radical departure from existing legal concepts.
whembly wrote: Right... so what are we truly arguing about here?
This bill, like the Federal RFRA, doesn't give you a blank check to discriminate.
The two bills are worded almost exactly the same, which probably isn't due to mere coincidence or happenstance. The language in SB 101 is as anti LGBT as the language in the RFRA signed by Bill Clinton in 1993. If SB 101 is all about descriminating against gays then that descrimination has already been codified into federal law for over 20 years.
Indiana's SB 101
Spoiler:
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmentalentity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person'sexercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstratesthat application of the burden to the person:(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest;and(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compellinggovernmental interest.
Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has beensubstantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, bya violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impendingviolation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrativeproceeding, regardless of whether the state or any othergovernmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevantgovernmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, thegovernmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene inorder to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.
Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation ofthis chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapterdetermines that:(1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantiallyburdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and(2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has notdemonstrated that application of the burden to the person:(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmentalinterest; and(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering thatcompelling governmental interest;the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any partyand shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity.(b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any ofthe following:(1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate thatprevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of thischapter.(2) Compensatory damages.(c) In the appropriate case, the court or other tribunal also mayaward all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonableattorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmentalentity under this chapter
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
Spoiler:
(a) Findings
The Congress finds that—
(1)the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2)laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3)governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4)in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5)the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
(b) Purposes
The purposes of this chapter are—
(1)to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2)to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address that portion of the First Amendment prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion (referred to in this section as the “Establishment Clause”). Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, shall not constitute a violation of this chapter. As used in this section, the term “granting”, used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.
If "I don't have to see your child because the parents are gay and that goes against my religion" and "I don't have to fill your prescription if my religion doesn't believe in birth control" are already things that are happening without explicit protection by law, then how does anyone honestly think that it won't be happening even more so?
d-usa wrote: If "I don't have to see your child because the parents are gay and that goes against my religion" and "I don't have to fill your prescription if my religion doesn't believe in birth control" are already things that are happening without explicit protection by law, then how does anyone honestly think that it won't be happening even more so?
As previously requested do you have any links to these instances? I'm just interested in what the resolutions were, and what the legal landscape looked like.
Are you saying that you think you think things were demonstrably better in the 20th century than they are now? Society has improved over time in regards to social and legal equality, I think even a cursory look at history shows that to be true.
I'm saying that things are always getting batter is an absurd joke.
Things were not better in the 20th century based on the absolute level of killy killy. Considering the ME versio of WWIII may have started yesterday the 21st century is not off to a great start.
People saying things get better ignore what happened to the Maya, Inca, Tang, Sung, Caliphate pre Mongolia, Dacia etc. etc. etc.
Different parts of the world, different cultures are going to evolve and progress differently. Was there less equality in US society in 1950 than there is now? Yes. Was there even less equality in 1850 than there was is 1950? Yes. Our society has gotten more equal over time.
Same thing is true in Europe. The UK is much more equal now than it was in the 15th century. The 16th had improvements over the 15th and so on.
Parts of the world lag behind the US and EU that's true. But parts of the world have always lagged behind for various reasons. The ME went centuries without the same kind of changes in other parts of the world because until the oil boom there in the mid 20th century there really wasn't much impetus to get involved there. The interior of the African continent is underdeveloped because for most of human history it was really dangerously difficult for people who didn't already live there to get there.
I don't think it's reasonable to base quality of life solely on the level of global deaths form wars. There's always been a war going on somewhere. Wars in the 20th century killed a lot of people but at the time they occurred they involved more humans that have ever been alive before and higher levels of technology than had ever existed before. Wars got more lethal for the same reasons that life in Paris in 1920 was demonstrably better than life in Paris in 1720. Advances in labor rights, equality, legal rights, technology, medicine, economic mobility, etc. can't all be discarded because international wars became more lethal.
The native Americans who were here earlier would say, no its not gotten better-cause well their entire civilizations were killed off.
d-usa wrote: If "I don't have to see your child because the parents are gay and that goes against my religion" and "I don't have to fill your prescription if my religion doesn't believe in birth control" are already things that are happening without explicit protection by law, then how does anyone honestly think that it won't be happening even more so?
As previously requested do you have any links to these instances? I'm just interested in what the resolutions were, and what the legal landscape looked like.
So far as pharmacists refusing to fill birth control, I know this is anecdotal evidence which is everyone's least favorite evidence, but it happened very, very regularly - weekly at least, when I was a rep with that company. It was about 10 years or so ago. You can google up specific examples if you like. It was almost always smaller pharmacies, not the big chains like Walgreens or CVS. As far as I know it's totally legal, or at least it certainly was then.
I never once got a call from a man saying a rph refused to dispense a dick pill because the man was unmarried, by the way.
Frazzled wrote: I'm really saying its a point of view.
Are things better now than 50 years ago? For some people. For others no. Things get better, things get worse.
I think you've got a utopia fallacy going there; you seem to be saying as long as someone/ someones is suffering, then nothing has improved even though that's kind of silly.
Are you saying that you think you think things were demonstrably better in the 20th century than they are now? Society has improved over time in regards to social and legal equality, I think even a cursory look at history shows that to be true.
I'm saying that things are always getting batter is an absurd joke.
Things were not better in the 20th century based on the absolute level of killy killy. Considering the ME versio of WWIII may have started yesterday the 21st century is not off to a great start.
People saying things get better ignore what happened to the Maya, Inca, Tang, Sung, Caliphate pre Mongolia, Dacia etc. etc. etc.
Different parts of the world, different cultures are going to evolve and progress differently. Was there less equality in US society in 1950 than there is now? Yes. Was there even less equality in 1850 than there was is 1950? Yes. Our society has gotten more equal over time.
Same thing is true in Europe. The UK is much more equal now than it was in the 15th century. The 16th had improvements over the 15th and so on.
Parts of the world lag behind the US and EU that's true. But parts of the world have always lagged behind for various reasons. The ME went centuries without the same kind of changes in other parts of the world because until the oil boom there in the mid 20th century there really wasn't much impetus to get involved there. The interior of the African continent is underdeveloped because for most of human history it was really dangerously difficult for people who didn't already live there to get there.
I don't think it's reasonable to base quality of life solely on the level of global deaths form wars. There's always been a war going on somewhere. Wars in the 20th century killed a lot of people but at the time they occurred they involved more humans that have ever been alive before and higher levels of technology than had ever existed before. Wars got more lethal for the same reasons that life in Paris in 1920 was demonstrably better than life in Paris in 1720. Advances in labor rights, equality, legal rights, technology, medicine, economic mobility, etc. can't all be discarded because international wars became more lethal.
The native Americans who were here earlier would say, no its not gotten better-cause well their entire civilizations were killed off.
Are we still killing off Native American tribes today? Could the govt, the military and the courts act in a similar fashion today? No, because today things are better. Today is always better than yesterday and is only surpassed by tomorrow. Life spans have never been longer, medicine has never been more effective, knowledge has never been greater, technology has never been more advanced, individuals have never had more freedom.
So far as pharmacists refusing to fill birth control, I know this is anecdotal evidence which is everyone's least favorite evidence, but it happened very, very regularly - weekly at least, when I was a rep with that company. It was about 10 years or so ago. You can google up specific examples if you like. It was almost always smaller pharmacies, not the big chains like Walgreens or CVS. As far as I know it's totally legal, or at least it certainly was then.
So if it was "totally legal" then, and the same protections exist now then I'm unclear as to why people believe that the legal and social landscape has changed.
Ouze wrote: I never once got a call from a man saying a rph refused to dispense a dick pill because the man was unmarried, by the way.
And were these same pharmacists who were refusing to refill birth control bills also refilling a "dick pill" script? Was the refusal to refill the birth control pills because the ladies in question were unmarried?
Are we still killing off Native American tribes today? Could the govt, the military and the courts act in a similar fashion today? No, because today things are better. Today is always better than yesterday and is only surpassed by tomorrow. Life spans have never been longer, medicine has never been more effective, knowledge has never been greater, technology has never been more advanced, individuals have never had more freedom.
One could argue that its considerably worse for the religious nutjobs.
They used to be able to kill native americans and say that it was gods work, now they can't.
They used to be able to discriminate against blacks and say that god told them to, now they can't.
They used to be able to discriminate against women because god said so, now they have almost lost that as well.
They can only be bigots towards the LGBT community and a small subset of a women's body now, their freedom of religion is almost entirely gone.
Frazzled wrote: I'm really saying its a point of view.
Are things better now than 50 years ago? For some people. For others no. Things get better, things get worse.
I think you've got a utopia fallacy going there; you seem to be saying as long as someone/ someones is suffering, then nothing has improved even though that's kind of silly.
Well we're going off on a tangent so I'll just say we have to agree to disagree.
"Take my advice and go back to the time you came from. The future isn't what it used to be. "
-GKar
Thats enough, so even you would unwillingly agree its not therefore about homosexuality, its about religious freedom of non participation.
If the set of conditions that are covered by a bill include sexuality, abortion and birth control, and let us assume for the sake of argument it stopped there. Then the definition of the set is not sexuality.
The set is correctly defined in the bill, its is about Religious Freedom.
I most certainly would not agree to that. It is clearly about homosexuality. The only thing I would agree to is the statement that some individuals who are not gay might be affected by this bill, but I maintain that those individuals were not the parties the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote this.
But we both know that's not who the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote it.
Do you now. The law was written in a neutral format
It does not single out Christianity as a protected class
It does not single out sexual preference as a described target
The Law is the ultimate RAW, read it as such.
Yeah, it's about homosexuality. I know this because I am able to use facts to make inferences. FACT: there is a great deal of religious push-back against homosexuality in the conservative Christian community. FACT: this law was drafted by consservative Christians. FACT: homosexuals have been awarded more and more protections under the law in recent court cases. FACT: these protections only serve to anger conservative Christians even more. FACT: a law only gets written and passed if there is someone sees some kind of pressing need for it. FACT: there has not been a flood of recent court cases in Indianna dealing with kosher delis or halal butcher shops. LOGICAL INFERENCE: backlash against increased legal protections is the motivation behind this law.
You need to read carefully. I didn't mention eating pork as the example, I mentioned farming pigs as the example. Sounds similar but different. If a food supplier supplies pork to its clients refusing service has no partical application.
However if the case is reversed there is.
In some interpretations of Kosher and Halal rules a farmer who produces pork cannot produce clean food at his farm even if the produce is not pork related.
So a Kosher/Halal butcher or food supplier to religious butchers might refuse to deal with a farmer who raises pigs. This happens, routinely.
This just proves my point. If a produce supplier raises pigs and is considered unclean by its customers, then the customers refuse to patronize the service. This law does nothing to alter that relationship, because it is the customer refusing to do business with the supplier on religious grounds, not the supplier refusing to serve the customer. To translate this example into the gay wedding cake metaphor we're all familiar with; the guy farming pigs provides the service (the wedding cake) and the Orthodox Jew is the customer who wants a gay cake. Only, in this case, the gay guy takes his business elsewhere because he is the guy with religious objections to the cake maker, and doesn't want to use his bakery. The customer objects to supplier on religious grounds, which is the inverse of what this law deals with. This law permits the supplier to refuse service to the consumer. An Orthodox Jew who doesn't want to deal with pig farmers simply doesn't deal with pig farmers. Your example of pig farmers and Orthodox Jews only works if the supplier can somehow force the consumer to purchase his pig-smeared product, which is not the case at all (he's a pig farmer, not a cable company).
Maybe not, they are already protected indirectly. No one is going after a minority religion for 'discrimination', its not the type of fight most lawyers relish. Christians are a much easier target.
And even the militant gay lobby avoids going after Islam, though Islam has very strong and vocal homophobic elements. Westboro baptists are liberal by comparison.
Nobody is going after Islam, because in this country, Islam isn't the majority religion and doesn't have the political clout to get discriminatory laws like this passed.
This law was made as a direct response to what conservative Christians see as a broadening of rights and an increase of acceptance for homosexuals; a group they oppose on religious grounds.
It affects the timing of the new law, but legislation always come as a result of public need (though the definition of public varies).
There is no public "need" for this law, except to permit discrimination against homosexuals. As I said before, there has not been a flood of court cases involving kosher delis or halal butchers (and the last birth control challenge was *years* ago) but there have been a lot of cases about equal rights being awarded to homosexuals. If the law was about more than discrimination, we would have seen a lot of court cases about religious freedom issues totaly unrelated to homosexuality. We haven't. Therefore, the logical inference is...
So...in that instance, one doctor was uncomfortable doing it, responsibly found another doctor for them, and that was that?
In this instance Doctor A refused to provide treatment due to his religion, dumped the patient on Doctor B, didn't have the balls to tell the parents he was doing it either.
Were they actually denied treatment at all?
Yes, by Doctor A. Thanks for reading.
I don't know about you, but I generally don't consider my physicians to be interchangeable. I picked my PCP after doing research about his practice and talking to other patients, I don't just walk into an office and say "Hi there doctor stranger, I don't know you but I'm here for my prostate check, hope you have small fingers".
That goes double about picking the physician for my child.
If I pick Doctor A as my child's doctor, and Doctor A refuses to see him due to my sexual orientation, then Doctor A has refused to treat my child regardless of if he managed to pawn the responsibility of to another Doctor that gives a crap about their oath.
I think we're all getting to the weeds here ya'll.
Let's simplify the arguments a bit.
Would you be okay with a Muslim baker refusing to bake a cake for some journalism school party, that's topped with the following picture and an inscription of "Mohammed is a Jerk"?
whembly wrote: I think we're all getting to the weeds here ya'll.
Let's simplify the arguments a bit.
Would you be okay with a Muslim baker refusing to bake a cake for some journalism school party, that's topped with the following picture and an inscription of "Mohammed is a Jerk"?
Muslims are forbidden from drawing representations of Allah or Muhammed by their religion. I haven't read the Bible in over 20 years, but I'm pretty sure that there isn't anything in it forbidding a Christian from entering in a commercial transaction with a gay person... Jesus was a cool guy like that.
whembly wrote: I think we're all getting to the weeds here ya'll.
Let's simplify the arguments a bit.
Would you be okay with a Muslim baker refusing to bake a cake for some journalism school party, that's topped with the following picture and an inscription of "Mohammed is a Jerk"?
Muslims are forbidden from drawing representations of Allah or Muhammed by their religion. I haven't read the Bible in over 20 years, but I'm pretty sure that there isn't anything in it forbidding a Christian from entering in a commercial transaction with a gay person... Jesus was a cool guy like that.
I picked what I think is one of the strongest defense for RFRA on purpose.
I picked what I think is one of the strongest defense for RFRA on purpose.
A stronger one would be: do you think that a Christian Doctor should be forced to euthanize a terminally ill patient against his religious objections.
I would say no, since THAT would actually go against his freedom of religion.
Of course by some objections, that would also include giving the patient donor blood for use in surgery (Jehova's), would you say no then as well to a lifesaving surgery blocked due to religious beliefs?
I picked what I think is one of the strongest defense for RFRA on purpose.
A stronger one would be: do you think that a Christian Doctor should be forced to euthanize a terminally ill patient against his religious objections.
I would say no, since THAT would actually go against his freedom of religion.
Of course by some objections, that would also include giving the patient donor blood for use in surgery (Jehova's), would you say no then as well to a lifesaving surgery blocked due to religious beliefs?
That happens today.
Hospitals are very sensitive to whether or not the patient is a Jehova's Witness.
I picked what I think is one of the strongest defense for RFRA on purpose.
A stronger one would be: do you think that a Christian Doctor should be forced to euthanize a terminally ill patient against his religious objections.
I would say no, since THAT would actually go against his freedom of religion.
Of course by some objections, that would also include giving the patient donor blood for use in surgery (Jehova's), would you say no then as well to a lifesaving surgery blocked due to religious beliefs?
That happens today.
Hospitals are very sensitive to whether or not the patient is a Jehova's Witness.
It's been a while since I've checked, but I was mostly unsure whether Doctors who are Jehova's Witnesses are allowed to use it within surgery, as in they would refuse a patient (A Non Jehova's Witness) donor blood due to religious beliefs. Though I'm not exactly fond of someone who would deny a suffering patient a clean death rather then continue to let them agonize.
I picked what I think is one of the strongest defense for RFRA on purpose.
A stronger one would be: do you think that a Christian Doctor should be forced to euthanize a terminally ill patient against his religious objections.
I would say no, since THAT would actually go against his freedom of religion.
Of course by some objections, that would also include giving the patient donor blood for use in surgery (Jehova's), would you say no then as well to a lifesaving surgery blocked due to religious beliefs?
Those are all decisions from the patient himself, not from the doctor.
A biggest controversy on those cases is when the parent's that are Jehovah's witnesses try to prevent those treatments from being given to their son / daughter.
I picked what I think is one of the strongest defense for RFRA on purpose.
A stronger one would be: do you think that a Christian Doctor should be forced to euthanize a terminally ill patient against his religious objections.
I would say no, since THAT would actually go against his freedom of religion.
Of course by some objections, that would also include giving the patient donor blood for use in surgery (Jehova's), would you say no then as well to a lifesaving surgery blocked due to religious beliefs?
Those are all decisions from the patient himself, not from the doctor.
A biggest controversy on those cases is when the parent's that are Jehovah's witnesses try to prevent those treatments from being given to their son / daughter.
I really should have worded that sentence better, I was referring to the Doctor himself being a Jehova's Witness and denying the patient donor blood regardless of the patients personal beliefs.
Though I have seen a few of those controversies..It's never pretty.
I really should have worded that sentence better, I was referring to the Doctor himself being a Jehova's Witness and denying the patient donor blood regardless of the patients personal beliefs.
Though I have seen a few of those controversies..It's never pretty.
Ah, ok, never mind then, I misunderstood you.
I've actually never heard of a Jehovah's Witness doctor... That would be kind of weird, like a vegan butcher.
I picked what I think is one of the strongest defense for RFRA on purpose.
A stronger one would be: do you think that a Christian Doctor should be forced to euthanize a terminally ill patient against his religious objections.
I would say no, since THAT would actually go against his freedom of religion.
Of course by some objections, that would also include giving the patient donor blood for use in surgery (Jehova's), would you say no then as well to a lifesaving surgery blocked due to religious beliefs?
Those are all decisions from the patient himself, not from the doctor.
A biggest controversy on those cases is when the parent's that are Jehovah's witnesses try to prevent those treatments from being given to their son / daughter.
I really should have worded that sentence better, I was referring to the Doctor himself being a Jehova's Witness and denying the patient donor blood regardless of the patients personal beliefs.
Though I have seen a few of those controversies..It's never pretty.
Actually, now that I think about it... it shouldn't be a problem for that doctor to *do* the blood transfusion on behalf of the patient.
That's different than a patient refusing to give/recieve blood based on their belief.
That goes double about picking the physician for my child.
If I pick Doctor A as my child's doctor, and Doctor A refuses to see him due to my sexual orientation, then Doctor A has refused to treat my child regardless of if he managed to pawn the responsibility of to another Doctor that gives a crap about their oath.
Our practice required to see 4 physicians for our daughter before we settled on a "preferred" one.
Muslims are forbidden from drawing representations of Allah or Muhammed by their religion. I haven't read the Bible in over 20 years, but I'm pretty sure that there isn't anything in it forbidding a Christian from entering in a commercial transaction with a gay person... Jesus was a cool guy like that.
And if you want to be really technical, there are forms of Christianity where, if they bake a cake with any form of religious adornments (cross, pic of Jesus, etc) then they have violated the tenets of their faith
I want to apologize on the behalf of all real Christians for the bad, hateful people pretending to be Christians who support this new law. We aren't all like that, so please don't assume all Christians are evil. Just the bigoted, homophobic, racist pretenders. Those "Christians" are evil and have broken away from God's and Jesus's teachings. They don't know they're evil though, so please pity them. As Jesus once said, "they know not what they do."
Wow I didn't know I had broken away from God's teachings for supporting the same position as every religious institution in the US, that they should be able to practice what their religious morals dictates.
Quick someone phone Pope Frankie. Tell him you have a pizza and he'll pick up.
Now if you said most Christians will not discriminate I'd get behind that.
Christianity is supposed to be a faith founded on love and acceptance. Hate and bigotry are the opposite. History has shown a LOT of examples of people doing it wrong. This will go down as another example.
timetowaste85 wrote: Christianity is supposed to be a faith founded on love and acceptance. Hate and bigotry are the opposite. History has shown a LOT of examples of people doing it wrong. This will go down as another example.
So you're ok with making a charity Catholic hospital perform abortions? Good to know.
You're ok with the Klan making you work for them? Thats not very loving and accepting, but hey thats what you want.
Frazzled wrote: Wow I didn't know I had broken away from God's teachings for supporting the same position as every religious institution in the US, that they should be able to practice what their religious morals dictates.
Quick someone phone Pope Frankie. Tell him you have a pizza and he'll pick up.
Now if you said most Christians will not discriminate I'd get behind that.
Actually, Pope Francis is pretty much in favour of accepting gay people in the Church:
My view on abortions is that they're completely acceptable in certain forms: if the woman was raped or the child had an almost 100% guarantee of death in childbirth, extreme retardation that would grant it no chance to live a happy life, or if the mother had a high chance to die in childbirth. If any of those were in effect, then you bet your ass I'd expect the hospital to fething do it!
I don't view abortion as a form of birth control. I do see it as an acceptable need in some situations. Seeing how my grandmother would have died without an abortion when she was younger, yes, I'd have a full hate-on for whatever hospital turned her away because "saving her life went against their religion".
timetowaste85 wrote: My view on abortions is that they're completely acceptable in certain forms: if the woman was raped or the child had an almost 100% guarantee of death in childbirth, extreme retardation that would grant it no chance to live a happy life, or if the mother had a high chance to die in childbirth. If any of those were in effect, then you bet your ass I'd expect the hospital to fething do it!
I don't view abortion as a form of birth control. I do see it as an acceptable need in some situations. Seeing how my grandmother would have died without an abortion when she was younger, yes, I'd have a full hate-on for whatever hospital turned her away because "saving her life went against their religion".
Unless you're the Pope, your view is irrelevant. Abortions are against Catholic Church doctrine, but they're evil bigots for a bill that would permit them to not be required to perform them. Methinks they aren't the bigot. You are.
Frazzled wrote: Wow I didn't know I had broken away from God's teachings for supporting the same position as every religious institution in the US, that they should be able to practice what their religious morals dictates.
Quick someone phone Pope Frankie. Tell him you have a pizza and he'll pick up.
Now if you said most Christians will not discriminate I'd get behind that.
Actually, I feel the exact opposite. The Pope appears to be the first truly righteous dude they've had for the position. Meanwhile, "most Christians" appear to live by the old testament when it suits them as far as judging other people.
Frazzled wrote: supporting the same position as every religious institution in the US
Did you miss the quote from the Christian group renouncing this bill as "hatred and bigotry disguised as religious freedom" earlier in the thread? Stop pretending 'every religious institution' is in lock-step with each other on this. If you are ok with more laws and silliness fine, but don't pretend to talk for all people.
Frazzled wrote: Wow I didn't know I had broken away from God's teachings for supporting the same position as every religious institution in the US, that they should be able to practice what their religious morals dictates.
Quick someone phone Pope Frankie. Tell him you have a pizza and he'll pick up.
Now if you said most Christians will not discriminate I'd get behind that.
Actually, I feel the exact opposite. The Pope appears to be the first truly righteous dude they've had for the position. Meanwhile, "most Christians" appear to live by the old testament when it suits them as far as judging other people.
Again utterly irrelevant to WHAT THE ACTUAL LAW IS. The law says people cannot be coerced against their religious views n the area of commerce. Whats so hard about that?
Sure a few rednecks may not relish the chance to not do business with homosexuals, but like free speech the First Amendment protects the bad as well as the good. Absent a monopoly commerce should, and historically has been, a voluntary exercise.
My religion says I shouldn't deal with vermin like Nazis. Without the law you can make me do that.
I don't have too much of an issue with people refusing service for Religious reasons as long as several conditions are met.
1) They are up front about it. Simply saying you are a Christian business is not enough as different people who call themselves Christian disagree about things like this. This includes signage or verbage in advertisements.
2) There are other alternatives of people who will not refuse service for the same thing and they can refer people there.
3) The thing is not time critical.
I don't find the argument that not being able to stop someone else from not following the tennets of your religion is infringing on your religious liberty valid.
d-usa wrote: If your religion keeps you from offering comprehensive healthcare services, then maybe you shouldn't decide to offer healthcare services.
Simple stuff really.
translation: if your religion says you can't kill babies on a whim, well maybe you shouldn't practice medicine. Good to know you would make what millions believe is murder, commit murder.
What do you do for an encore? Kill old people if they are inconvenient?
You know you could have simply said (as we were doing before the stupid assed statement about Christians was made, again, that most Christians wouldn't discriminate and that those that do are misguided. Pulling the bigot card against EVERYONE who supported or made arguments for it, is the height of being an ass.
d-usa wrote: If your religion keeps you from offering comprehensive healthcare services, then maybe you shouldn't decide to offer healthcare services.
Simple stuff really.
translation: if your religion says you can't kill babies on a whim, well maybe you shouldn't practice medicine. Good to know you would make what millions believe is murder, commit murder.
What do you do for an encore? Kill old people if they are inconvenient?
A foetus is not a baby, otherwise billions of women should be charged with involuntary manslaughter every year.
Frazzled wrote: Wow I didn't know I had broken away from God's teachings for supporting the same position as every religious institution in the US, that they should be able to practice what their religious morals dictates.
Quick someone phone Pope Frankie. Tell him you have a pizza and he'll pick up.
Now if you said most Christians will not discriminate I'd get behind that.
Actually, I feel the exact opposite. The Pope appears to be the first truly righteous dude they've had for the position. Meanwhile, "most Christians" appear to live by the old testament when it suits them as far as judging other people.
Again utterly irrelevant to WHAT THE ACTUAL LAW IS. The law says people cannot be coerced against their religious views n the area of commerce. Whats so hard about that?
Sure a few rednecks may not relish the chance to not do business with homosexuals, but like free speech the First Amendment protects the bad as well as the good. Absent a monopoly commerce should, and historically has been, a voluntary exercise.
My religion says I shouldn't deal with vermin like Nazis. Without the law you can make me do that.
Oh, okay. I didn't realize we were talking about the law at this point.
...who are the vermin, and why are they like Nazis? I know how I prefer to deal with Nazis. How does the absence of this law make me deal with the vermin like I would them?
Are we assuming the Nazis are the ones in power? That would be scary.
translation: if your religion says you can't kill babies on a whim, well maybe you shouldn't practice medicine. Good to know you would make what millions believe is murder, commit murder.
Also, and to a certain extent... yeah. Yeah. I would agree with this statement.
timetowaste85 wrote: My view on abortions is that they're completely acceptable in certain forms: if the woman was raped or the child had an almost 100% guarantee of death in childbirth, extreme retardation that would grant it no chance to live a happy life, or if the mother had a high chance to die in childbirth. If any of those were in effect, then you bet your ass I'd expect the hospital to fething do it!
I don't view abortion as a form of birth control. I do see it as an acceptable need in some situations. Seeing how my grandmother would have died without an abortion when she was younger, yes, I'd have a full hate-on for whatever hospital turned her away because "saving her life went against their religion".
Unless you're the Pope, your view is irrelevant. Abortions are against Catholic Church doctrine, but they're evil bigots for a bill that would permit them to not be required to perform them. Methinks they aren't the bigot. You are.
You're already free to not perform them: by not opening or keeping a hospital.It's perfectly reasonable to for the government to say "Here are the requirements for offering a particular service or set of services to the public, or these are the rules required to open a specific kind of business". If for any reason you don't want to meet the guidelines in either case the government is not going to force you to open a business.
The issue with allowing religion to be used as premise for being able to ignore general law is that it renders the law either
A) Entirely toothless. or
B) In the business of endorsing specific religions.*
If the government can't favor one religion over another, I can simply subscribe to Blightism where my central prophet is Captain Pollution (from the captain planet cartoon). One of the main tenets of our religion is that any toxins, caustic materials or other waste we produce cannot be transported cannot be disposed of safely. Our lord demands we dump it on our front lawn, in the open.
That's pretty insane. Now if the government wants to stop me from doing that we have to recognize the government has the right to regulate the behavior of business in a way that might make some businesses unattractive for some religions. If we want to then say that the government can make some exceptions for some religions in some cases it's clearly a matter of favoritism.
Why should the Catholics get to run their business in some way that defies general law, but I the Blightist cannot? We could say some areas of the law can have religious exemptions and others cannot but that's no better. It's another path to the same destination the government giving some religions a free pass and not others, since not every religion will conflict with the law in the same ways or in the same areas.
A law that says "Cathlotics can't open hospitals" is clearly discriminatory. A law that says "Catholics must perform abortions" is also discriminatory. Passing a law that says "Everyone that opens a hospital must offer abortion services" is not.
The only question is if society collectively thinks that hospitals should universally be required to offer abortions. That Catholics are prohibited form doing so is certainly something people are free to keep in mind when voting. It's just not right to have the law itself written with favoritism built in.
EDIT: Of course I suspect there are a lot people who wouldn't see this as a problem. It's just odd how many Americans seem to claim to be a stickler for this, but then are also fine with religons side-stepping the law so just long as it's their religion.
d-usa wrote: If your religion keeps you from offering comprehensive healthcare services, then maybe you shouldn't decide to offer healthcare services.
Simple stuff really.
translation: if your religion says you can't kill babies on a whim, well maybe you shouldn't practice medicine. Good to know you would make what millions believe is murder, commit murder. What do you do for an encore? Kill old people if they are inconvenient?
A foetus is not a baby, otherwise billions of women should be charged with involuntary manslaughter every year.
d-usa wrote: If your religion keeps you from offering comprehensive healthcare services, then maybe you shouldn't decide to offer healthcare services.
Simple stuff really.
translation: if your religion says you can't kill babies on a whim, well maybe you shouldn't practice medicine. Good to know you would make what millions believe is murder, commit murder.
What do you do for an encore? Kill old people if they are inconvenient?
A foetus is not a baby, otherwise billions of women should be charged with involuntary manslaughter every year.
Says you. Science says its a separate entity.
Actually, the Medical Dictionary defines a baby as "An infant; a newborn child", so I would say that Science agrees with me.
It also says the same about plenty of other life on a cellular level. What science also demomstrates is at what point that ball of cells is able to survive on its own, when it is able to detect and act on stimulus, etc, to the point where it can be considered to be a human being.
Destroying a ball of cells is far different to killing a human being and this is recognised in the laws of most civilised nations.
Me neither. As I say, they probably wrote their appeal to the Governor with the best of intentions. But since GenCon is worth $50 million a year to Indy's economy, they will try to sweeten their convention deal to keep them.
d-usa wrote: If your religion keeps you from offering comprehensive healthcare services, then maybe you shouldn't decide to offer healthcare services.
Simple stuff really.
translation: if your religion says you can't kill babies on a whim, well maybe you shouldn't practice medicine.
translation: I can't debate against an actual argument, so lets make gak up and turn the crazy to 11 and make a bunch of noise.
If your religion says you can't commit murder, and your own definition of murder prevents you from doing your job, then you shouldn't voluntarily choose that job. If any of your religious teachings will prevent you from doing your job, then you shouldn't make the voluntary choice to do that job. If your religious teachings will prevent you from offering a service, then you shouldn't operate a business that should offer that service. If filling certain prescriptions goes against your religion, then you shouldn't make the choice to go to pharmacy school to become a pharmacist. If your religion prevents you from touching a persons penis because it's dirty, then you shouldn't become a physician. If your religion prevents you from giving loans to two gay guys because you don't think they should live together, then you shouldn't become a banker. It really is pretty simple stuff.
Good to know you would make what millions believe is murder, commit murder.
If I DON'T believe that smashing babies heads against rocks on their first birthday is murder, does that mean I get to do it? Science or the law shouldn't matter as long as I believe something right?
Science and the law doesn't, and shouldn't, rely on individual believes about what is and isn't right.
What do you do for an encore? Kill old people if they are inconvenient?
kronk wrote: We're going off the reservation, guys.
I, for one, don't think that GenCon will move. We'll see, though.
They sorta made promises to their gay and gay-friendly constituents at this point. However, the contract reaches out far enough where it might extend beyond people's attention span. I imagine alot will have to do with what happens between now and then. Usually when legislation brings this level of unwanted attention, there's some turnaround in the legislature, so a repeal or revision of the bill is possible. Also, even if the bill stays, its possible that businesses at large in Indianapolis will choose not to discriminate, so if there are no such incidents, that might keep GenCon there.
I'd think the Final Four would be more of a concern, of course I don't know which one brings in more revenue.
I can see a place like Austin being one of the few reasonable alternatives.
Gencom can come. Since the Great California Flood, Austin lost a lot of its fun-becoming like your average northern Cali town. We need some more weirdness back.
Did I mention we now have three streets full of bars?
Maybe people should stop being "in your face" gay activists.
Do you hold the same opinion regarding heterosexual activists?
I don't hold the opinion that gay activists shouldn't be allowed to vocally protest.
I don't hold the opinion that heterosexual activists shoudn't be allowed to vocally protest.
My identity as a conservative or a Christian doesn't interfere with this in any way.
Next time try and be honest for a change and quote fully. However its not in your interest to isnt it.
By reducing my posts to as snip you can rid thseem of meaning down to the few words you want to twist.
You claim you do. But then despite my many threats where I show out of the box thinking you come back and try to pigeonhole me.
Besides....
But you don't know my local gay club, or that I was welcome there, or why I was welcome there (hint I am not gay or Bi or transgender).
Do you know the gay underground church? Know where to find it.
There is quite a bit you don't know, but you make assumptions that because of an internet persona, and the inferences that I am both Christian and conservative, both of which I do not deny, you assume I think along certain lines.
Whereas in reality I show evidence of considerable levity of opinion.
You know many Christian conservatives are heavily pro-Israel, others are seven day creationists. I am neither and you know that from our previous arguments.
Yet despite this you think I have a set easy to pigeonhole and label opinion.
I put that down to the trouble you have of presenting an honest argument, so you always snip posts, go on the attack and never actually answer questions thrown back at you before launching yet more.
I think its possibly because you cant keep up a logical argument.
For a long time you have stopped going back to your old ways, I was hoping you had grown up some. It is disappointing to see the old dogma back.
Most Christians wont necessarily know which bars are gay bars, especially if they are sheltered.
I'm pretty sure most US Christians can figure out which bars are gay before walking in.
Maybe, maybe not. Not everyone knows what a rainbow flag is. I can't remember off hand which ear a single earing is used to signify being gay.
Besides you were being very personal with the comments earlier so the context of the Christian in a gay bar should then refer to a UK one. For the record most of those here are just regular British pubs.
Orlanth wrote: I did so by looking at the law, what it meant what was read etc.
And that's the problem: you insist on being "detached" and taking the words of the law out of the context of the law. Meanwhile anyone who lives in the US and is familiar with US politics knows that the context of the law matters. It isn't about some kind of noble crusade to protect obscure religious minorities, it's about giving conservative Christians the right to discriminate. The supporters of the law are conservative Christians who make no secret of their beliefs, and the law is almost identical to similar laws elsewhere that were supported by conservative Christians for the same reasons. Even if the law doesn't explicitly say "we hate gay people" everyone involved knows exactly what is going on.
Now, the only question here is whether you're ignoring this context because you're honestly not aware of the details of US politics (in which case please stop telling us all how it works) or because you're a conservative Christian and have ideological reasons for viewing this as a harmless "freedom" law with no malicious intent involved.
timetowaste85 wrote: extreme retardation that would grant it no chance to live a happy life,
So are you saying the life of a handicapped infant isn't as valuable as that of a fully-abled infant?
I'm saying that if the parents learn that their child will be so handicapped that it cannot hope to even understand the life it has, has a high probability of being hooked up to feeding tubes or other necessary medical interventions just to live each day, or is unable to progress beyond a 2-year old intellect and they feel it would be better to not force it into that life, yes. Forcing the child to live each day that way is a far crueler act than abortion before it is born. I'm not advocating going out and having abortions "just because", I'm just reasonable enough that I accept that in certain circumstances they are a mercy to either the mother, the child, or both.*
*To be clear, I think a woman having an abortion just because she feels she made a mistake, or decided she doesn't want a kid, is disgusting. I don't, and will never, consider it a form of birth control. I consider it a safety measure if the mother and/or child is high risk of dying in childbirth, it's a choice in the case of a rape victim, or in the case of such severe handicapping that there is no hope for a decent life, as detailed above.
Meanwhile anyone who lives in the US and is familiar with US politics knows that the context of the law matters. It isn't about some kind of noble crusade to protect obscure religious minorities, it's about giving conservative Christians the right to discriminate.
Again your opinion is heavily loaded. It isn't about 'discrimination' that implies bigotry in modern parlance, it's about non-participation, which doesnt.
The supporters of the law are conservative Christians who make no secret of their beliefs, and the law is almost identical to similar laws elsewhere that were supported by conservative Christians for the same reasons. Even if the law doesn't explicitly say "we hate gay people" everyone involved knows exactly what is going on.
Oh 'everyone knows' eh. Sounds like you just what you present a collective fallacy with a wink and a smile.
However how to you 'hate gay people' under the wording of substantial burden.
Have you actually read the bill, links were given. Do you have any clue what you are talking about?
Go ahead spit it out, tell me how you would defend hating gay people as a requirement, under substantial burden. I would like to see you try.
Now, the only question here is whether you're ignoring this context because you're honestly not aware of the details of US politics (in which case please stop telling us all how it works) or because you're a conservative Christian and have ideological reasons for viewing this as a harmless "freedom" law with no malicious intent involved.
I am not ignoring the context. I read the new Law. You can add what you like to that a law once enacted does what it says it does. Christians do indeed benefit, but so do others and the actual legal concept of substantial burden will not be en excuse for homophobia no matter how much you say it does because that not what the law reads.
It is not relevant who the catalyst of the law change was, for the benefit of Christians. we can go along with that. But the catalyst and beneficiary are not necessarily the same.
If you took the time to educate yourself on th act you will see it doesn't specify Christianity, nor does it specify homosexuality. It is quite possible for legislators to make up laws that do.
However it is important to note they did not.
You can as the thread has shown prove substantial burden to deny a service promoting Christianity on the grounds of non participation. So if the law can be used against Christians by non Christians in pratice then in reality it is not about defending Christians and that sir is a flat fact, no matter how much you stamp you feet and want to claim otherwise. Educate yourself, read that new Law. it's only two pages. Then come back and comment.
The bill was about Religious Freedom and the bill does what it said it would do.
As you are vehemently opposite to religious freedom at every opportunity and are quite vocal on that point you don't like the new bill, I can see that. It is because of people with attitudes like that who leads legislators to believe religion needs protecting with legislation. However that doesn't make this bill a carte blanche for 'discrimination' outside your head and those who have read the hysterical press from either angle and believe what it says.
Hell the OP mentioned GenCon, long forgot for most of the thread, In one letter GenCon claimed that attendees would be victimised, in another they claimed they had reassurances from businesses they wouldn't. They cant make up their minds on that issue, either its rank discrimination or it is not. It is for the purpose of complain, but itsn't for the purpose of reality. They should be more honest.
Orlanth wrote: The wording othe law is the context of the law. Laws are the ultimate RAW.
Nonsense. Laws are rarely enforced strictly by RAW, especially when they include vague concepts like "substantial burden" that are open to interpretation in ideologically-motivated ways.
Again your opinion is heavily loaded. It isn't about 'discrimination' that implies bigotry in modern parlance, it's about non-participation, which doesnt.
Yeah, and "whites only" signs were all about non-participation too. There was obviously no discrimination involved there, and the people posting those signs weren't bigots. Perhaps before talking about this subject you should read a bit more about US history and politics?
Oh 'everyone knows' eh. Sounds like you just what you present a collective fallacy with a wink and a smile.
Sigh. Could you please at least make a basic attempt to learn about this issue, including the arguments surrounding it, before posting about it? If you don't see how anti-gay discrimination is a primary motivation for this law then you really aren't paying attention to anything beyond the literal words of the law.
Go ahead spit it out, tell me how you would defend hating gay people as a requirement, under substantial burden.
"My religion says I shouldn't have to provide this service to gay people". You know, the exact argument that supporters of this law intend to make, and very similar to the "allowing my employees to purchase birth control violates my religion's rules" argument that businesses already made.
You can add what you like to that a law once enacted does what it says it does.
And it says that anti-gay discrimination (along with refusing to provide birth control, etc) is ok as long as it's a "substantial burden". And the people who decide if something is a "substantial burden" are most likely going to make that decision based on Christian ideology.
As you are vehemently opposite to religious freedom at every opportunity and are quite vocal on that point you don't like the new bill, I can see that.
I'm not opposed to religious freedom. Worship whatever imaginary being you want in your private life. But that freedom does not include allowing the modern equivalent of "whites only" signs.
However that doesn't make this bill a carte blanche for 'discrimination' outside your head and those who have read the hysterical press from either angle and believe what it says.
So you're saying that when the people who proposed and supported this law in response to situations like a doctor refusing to provide birth control or a bakery refusing to provide a cake for a gay wedding say "this is going to fix our problem" that's just the "hysterical press" and they actually proposed and supported a useless law that accomplishes none of their goals?
In one letter GenCon claimed that attendees would be victimised, in another they claimed they had reassurances from businesses they wouldn't.
I guess "this law creates the potential for victimization, but fortunately some local businesses near the convention have talked to us and assured us that we won't have any problems" is too subtle an argument for you? Do you understand how that assurance is not necessarily a permanent guarantee? The restaurant that promised "we won't discriminate, come eat here" could get new owners that do want to discriminate, etc.
I'm saying that if the parents learn that their child will be so handicapped that it cannot hope to even understand the life it has, has a high probability of being hooked up to feeding tubes or other necessary medical interventions just to live each day, or is unable to progress beyond a 2-year old intellect and they feel it would be better to not force it into that life, yes. Forcing the child to live each day that way is a far crueler act than abortion before it is born. I'm not advocating going out and having abortions "just because", I'm just reasonable enough that I accept that in certain circumstances they are a mercy to either the mother, the child, or both.*
Not really, because you posted a loaded question. Talking about a "handicapped infant" suggests the kind of disability that, while obviously not desirable, can be overcome and allows a relatively normal life. That's very different from the scenario where the baby is going to be born with a severe (and often inevitably fatal) problem and "life" as a vegetable is the best possible outcome to hope for. Being born without a brain isn't a mere "handicap", it's a death sentence and the only question is whether we should maximize the suffering involved or just take the easy way out for everyone and abort the fetus before it is born.
As in Indiana, proponents of Georgia’s bill have tried to argue that it has nothing to do with discrimination. Rep. Mike Jacobs, an LGBT-friendly Republican, decided to test this theory by introducing an amendment that would not allow claims of religious liberty to be used to circumvent state and local nondiscrimination protections. Supporters of the bill, like Rep. Barry Fleming (R), countered that the amendment “will gut the bill.” Nevertheless, the House Judiciary Committee approved the amendment with a 9-8 vote, three Republicans joining the Democrats in supporting it.
Fleming moved to table the amended bill, a motion that passed with 16 votes, making it doubtful the bill will proceed before the legislative session ends. With an exception for nondiscrimination protections, the “religious liberty” bill is likely dead.
Before the vote, the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Josh McKoon (R), joined the hearing to similarly argue against making an exception for nondiscrimination protections. He claimed that the bill’s religious liberty protections would no longer be “uniform” across the state, adding, “That amendment would completely undercut the purpose of the bill.” Rep. Roger Bruce (D) pressed McKoon: “That tells me that the purpose of the bill is to discriminate.” Without further explanation, he countered, “It couldn’t be further from the truth, no sir.”
Again utterly irrelevant to WHAT THE ACTUAL LAW IS. The law says people cannot be coerced against their religious views n the area of commerce. Whats so hard about that?
Sure a few rednecks may not relish the chance to not do business with homosexuals, but like free speech the First Amendment protects the bad as well as the good. Absent a monopoly commerce should, and historically has been, a voluntary exercise.
My religion says I shouldn't deal with vermin like Nazis. Without the law you can make me do that.
See... I partially agree with Frazz here, insofar as I think business owners should be able to refuse service to people... As far as I'm concerned, a business with a simple sign reading "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" gives that business owner all the permission/right to deny service to whoever the feth they want.
But where I disagree with Frazz is in creating a new law that says business owners are now legally able to deny service for X reason, to me, is completely redundant because that should be covered by the use of the word "anyone"
See... I partially agree with Frazz here, insofar as I think business owners should be able to refuse service to people... As far as I'm concerned, a business with a simple sign reading "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" gives that business owner all the permission/right to deny service to whoever the feth they want.
But where I disagree with Frazz is in creating a new law that says business owners are now legally able to deny service for X reason, to me, is completely redundant because that should be covered by the use of the word "anyone"
At face value, this seems both most reasonable and the safest approach, if it holds up in court by virtue of itself.
Not really, because you posted a loaded question. Talking about a "handicapped infant" suggests the kind of disability that, while obviously not desirable, can be overcome and allows a relatively normal life. That's very different from the scenario where the baby is going to be born with a severe (and often inevitably fatal) problem and "life" as a vegetable is the best possible outcome to hope for. Being born without a brain isn't a mere "handicap", it's a death sentence and the only question is whether we should maximize the suffering involved or just take the easy way out for everyone and abort the fetus before it is born.
Thank you. Don't worry though, Cincy's opinion means absolutely nothing to me. I answered his question, but I expected a crap retort back from him-it's pretty common of him. I knew it was flame-bait and that I was feeding a troll, but it was worth elaborating on my prior post, regardless that the request came from him.
I look at laws like this amd am remimded of the segregation laws of the past....the rallying cry of "Separate but equal" comes to mind.
Just because someone can get the same service 100' away does not necessarily mean that a business should be allowed to discriminate for whatever reason.
I guess the way I see it is that Gays have become the new Negros...but instead of skin color it is sexual orientation.
I wish more Christian religious folk would stop and re-read Jesus' second greatest commamdment....and truly meditate upon how he loved us.
"Hate the sin, but love the sinner"...a person may not agree with a lifestyle choice, but that doesn't make them less of a person.
There seems to be a misconception here that businesses can already refuse service for whatever reason they please. However, businesses that provide public accomdations are forbidden to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion , and national origin by the Civil Rights Act. And further they are forbidden to discriminate on the basis of disabilities by the Americans with Disabilities Act. These types of discrimination are illegal. So if an Indiana business discriminates because of these reasons, the victim was and remains protected by Federal law.
Except homosexuals are not protected by any of these federal laws. So this is why it's disingenuous to assert that this new law was not meant to target denial of service to homosexuals, because they are the ones with no pre-established protections against discrimination.
Torga_DW wrote: No, i was just near-hysterically typing after your comment that you can tell a person's sexual orientation from their clothing. Which you can't.
No, that's BS. A person "hysterically typing" in response to a comment would not be so articulate. What really happened is that you didn't like my criticism of your comment, and got upset.
Sure, lets go with that while you're going with the idea that you can spot sexual preferences by clothing.
edit: it couldn't possibly be that i'm a fast typer, it's just not possible.
Torga_DW wrote: No, i was just near-hysterically typing after your comment that you can tell a person's sexual orientation from their clothing. Which you can't.
No, that's BS. A person "hysterically typing" in response to a comment would not be so articulate. What really happened is that you didn't like my criticism of your comment, and got upset.
Sure, lets go with that while you're going with the idea that you can spot sexual preferences by clothing.
Orlanth wrote: The wording othe law is the context of the law. Laws are the ultimate RAW.
Nonsense. Laws are rarely enforced strictly by RAW, especially when they include vague concepts like "substantial burden" that are open to interpretation in ideologically-motivated ways.
They are open to interpretation in open court.
Again your opinion is heavily loaded. It isn't about 'discrimination' that implies bigotry in modern parlance, it's about non-participation, which doesnt.
Yeah, and "whites only" signs were all about non-participation too. There was obviously no discrimination involved there, and the people posting those signs weren't bigots. Perhaps before talking about this subject you should read a bit more about US history and politics?
Sigh. Could you please at least make a basic attempt to learn about this issue, including the arguments surrounding it, before posting about it? If you don't see how anti-gay discrimination is a primary motivation for this law then you really aren't paying attention to anything beyond the literal words of the law.
Except the media you are commenting about is hysterical. The literal words of law is WHAT YOU LITERALLY GET. You cant be so daft as to not realise this.
You can dress it up as youy like for political ends, its good copy. Cause a scare in the press etc, the the hard reality is that the law reads what it says it reads.
Go ahead spit it out, tell me how you would defend hating gay people as a requirement, under substantial burden.
"My religion says I shouldn't have to provide this service to gay people".
Which service and why? You know you have to do better than that. If someone gave that as an excuse they will likely be in trouble if sued.
You have to add in substantial burden. Where is it.
Its not hard you know I gave examples earlier, and of course some could be used against Christians.
You know, the exact argument that supporters of this law intend to make, and very similar to the "allowing my employees to purchase birth control violates my religion's rules" argument that businesses already made.
How does an employer have any say on the private purchases of their staff?
It must be in Peregrinland.
The actual issue is different the actual quote is "purchasing birth control policies for my employees violates my religions rules" which is far more reasonable, which is probably why you had to misrepresent it to evil Christians preventing birth control by employees.
You can add what you like to that a law once enacted does what it says it does.
And it says that anti-gay discrimination (along with refusing to provide birth control, etc) is ok as long as it's a "substantial burden". And the people who decide if something is a "substantial burden" are most likely going to make that decision based on Christian ideology.
No it doesnt.
We have seen that it can be applied by any religion, unless in Peregrinland Moslems aren't allowed lawyers. Note that in the US they do.
Second any application relating to homosexuality is incidental to the actual law.
Third its a desperate stretch to consider it 'discrimination' unless you insist on doing so because of a larger hate issue over religion. Substantial burden means a burden and a substantial one. what is a burden? a weight you carry. In this case a moral of philosophical weight. Gays (or anyone else) existing is not a burden on the person appealing to the law. Having to directly relate to their issues however is.
The cake analogy explains this, a client can buy any cake they like, to not serve them would be wrong. A client cannot demand the seller bake a specifc cake with customised lettering promoting values they are not happy with. That is non participation. see the difference, understand the difference.
As you are vehemently opposite to religious freedom at every opportunity and are quite vocal on that point you don't like the new bill, I can see that.
I'm not opposed to religious freedom. Worship whatever imaginary being you want in your private life. But that freedom does not include allowing the modern equivalent of "whites only" signs.
So you're saying that when the people who proposed and supported this law in response to situations like a doctor refusing to provide birth control or a bakery refusing to provide a cake for a gay wedding say "this is going to fix our problem" that's just the "hysterical press" and they actually proposed and supported a useless law that accomplishes none of their goals?
Doctors can already refuse to subscribe birth control or take part in abortions. They have to refer to someone else who can.
The law however achieves its goals. An activist looking for lawsuit bait cant go into a place of work under a religious ethos and ask for a customised service that propogates values the company would find objectionable and use the refusal as a beatstick against them.
In one letter GenCon claimed that attendees would be victimised, in another they claimed they had reassurances from businesses they wouldn't.
I guess "this law creates the potential for victimization, but fortunately some local businesses near the convention have talked to us and assured us that we won't have any problems" is too subtle an argument for you?
Its not 'subtle' its openly dishonest. it claims there is a problem while saying that on research there is no problem. Read the letter:
'hundreds of messages' confirming welcome of all GenCon attendees.
One of the vocal critics and public scaremongers is raising his stink while at the same time conforming that in actuality there is no discrimination going on.
Despite the fact gamers are high up on the religious discomfort list because of demonic references etc.
Do you understand how that assurance is not necessarily a permanent guarantee? The restaurant that promised "we won't discriminate, come eat here" could get new owners that do want to discriminate, etc.
So you still insist the 'threat' is still lurking around the corner. watch out them evil Christians might take over city busineses and close them to gay people. Peregrineland is an uncomfortable place.
In the US things are more prosperous and rational. The vast majority of businesses are open to all clients at all opening hours, and the majority of those who are not have to give specific reasons and criteria, aka substantial burden.
You will always get fringe nutjobs.
I wish more Christian religious folk would stop and re-read Jesus' second greatest commamdment....and truly meditate upon how he loved us.
"Hate the sin, but love the sinner"...a person may not agree with a lifestyle choice, but that doesn't make them less of a person.
This is correct.
So you refuse to complement the sin - baking a pro gay cake, printing foreign faith tracts, performing an abortion etc as your creed dictates.
But do not hate the sinner - so no discrimination involved. Discrimination by its current parlance implying a hate agenda.
Those who understand the teachings from a religious point of view and the new law will see that blanket discrimination against others is not acceptable, and never was.
However non participation in sinful activity is a commitment to follow, is non discriminatory as it forbids the act not the person and only removes the religious person from the act, it makes no command to do so on the client.
Orlanth, what constitutes "significant burden" and what group in society defines that?
It's a law that is vague on purpose so that it can be interpreted to discriminate homosexuals while having plausible deniability. The context is overwhelmingly clear, just like voter ID laws aren't actually about reducing fraud.
As in Indiana, proponents of Georgia’s bill have tried to argue that it has nothing to do with discrimination. Rep. Mike Jacobs, an LGBT-friendly Republican, decided to test this theory by introducing an amendment that would not allow claims of religious liberty to be used to circumvent state and local nondiscrimination protections. Supporters of the bill, like Rep. Barry Fleming (R), countered that the amendment “will gut the bill.” Nevertheless, the House Judiciary Committee approved the amendment with a 9-8 vote, three Republicans joining the Democrats in supporting it.
Fleming moved to table the amended bill, a motion that passed with 16 votes, making it doubtful the bill will proceed before the legislative session ends. With an exception for nondiscrimination protections, the “religious liberty” bill is likely dead.
Before the vote, the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Josh McKoon (R), joined the hearing to similarly argue against making an exception for nondiscrimination protections. He claimed that the bill’s religious liberty protections would no longer be “uniform” across the state, adding, “That amendment would completely undercut the purpose of the bill.” Rep. Roger Bruce (D) pressed McKoon: “That tells me that the purpose of the bill is to discriminate.” Without further explanation, he countered, “It couldn’t be further from the truth, no sir.”
This is the most telling post about these kinds of laws.
Thank you. Don't worry though, Cincy's opinion means absolutely nothing to me. I answered his question, but I expected a crap retort back from him-it's pretty common of him. I knew it was flame-bait and that I was feeding a troll, but it was worth elaborating on my prior post, regardless that the request came from him.
I'm flattered!
But honestly, it doesn't change the fact that by qualifying it like you did, you value one life over another. That's your perogative. I think people that are half in on abortion are hypocrites, and in the context of this discussion, it's worse because you said people that do it because they don't want or aren't ready for a kid are disgusting. I mean, discriminatory much?
I would never personally do it, but I absolutely think it should be legal. People should have the ability to make the best choice for themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Orlanth, what constitutes "significant burden" and what group in society defines that?
.
I just assumed it's the same group that's defining "living wage".
Orlanth wrote: They are open to interpretation in open court.
And if you think "open court" automatically means "unbiased" then you really are living in a fantasy world.
There is no correlation between the two.
Err, lol? If you have the right to decline service and it isn't discrimination to do so then "whites only" signs aren't discrimination. The business owner is just declining service to non-whites, which should be ok by your reasoning.
You have to add in substantial burden. Where is it.
The substantial burden is "it violates my conscience" or "I'm not comfortable with doing that". Which, as we've seen from previous laws and cases, is considered sufficient.
How does an employer have any say on the private purchases of their staff?
It must be in Peregrinland.
The actual issue is different the actual quote is "purchasing birth control policies for my employees violates my religions rules" which is far more reasonable, which is probably why you had to misrepresent it to evil Christians preventing birth control by employees.
And now you're blatantly misrepresenting the situation here. The employer was not asked to buy "birth control policies", they were asked to buy general health insurance policies that could be used by the employee to purchase birth control in their private life without involving the employer in any way. The employer did not face additional costs directly related to birth control, did not have to grant approval for it, etc. From the employer's point of view as a business there was no difference between the policies. The entire objection was that the employee's ability to use the insurance for purposes that the employer didn't approve of was somehow a violation of their religious beliefs.
We have seen that it can be applied by any religion, unless in Peregrinland Moslems aren't allowed lawyers. Note that in the US they do.
So I guess you're going to continue to pretend that all religions are treated equally in the US, despite a history of "religious freedom" meaning "you're free to be Christian"?
Second any application relating to homosexuality is incidental to the actual law.
It's not "incidental" when the whole point of the law involves homosexuality. The people who proposed and supported the law didn't just wake up one day and think "hey, we should have more religious freedom", it's a direct response to cases where conservative Christians were expected to serve gay customers.
Third its a desperate stretch to consider it 'discrimination' unless you insist on doing so because of a larger hate issue over religion.
It's hardly a stretch when it's equivalent to "whites only" signs that were ruled to be illegal discrimination.
The cake analogy explains this, a client can buy any cake they like, to not serve them would be wrong. A client cannot demand the seller bake a specifc cake with customised lettering promoting values they are not happy with. That is non participation. see the difference, understand the difference.
Ok, so in your world it's ok to refuse to bake a cake for a wedding with an interracial couple because that's just "non participation" and they're free to buy a generic cake off the shelf (unless you refuse that service as well)?
Doctors can already refuse to subscribe birth control or take part in abortions. They have to refer to someone else who can.
And this is a bad situation, regardless of whether this law makes it worse or simply reinforces existing problems. If your imaginary friend says that you can't do your job as a doctor then don't get a job as a doctor. A doctor that refuses to provide birth control or abortions because of their personal beliefs is not acting in the best interest of their patients and should have their license stripped just like a doctor that decided that homeopathy is the only cure for cancer and refused legitimate treatments.
An activist looking for lawsuit bait cant go into a place of work under a religious ethos and ask for a customised service that propogates values the company would find objectionable and use the refusal as a beatstick against them.
Yeah, what a horrible world it would be if obnoxious bigots had to face legal action...
And let's not pretend that this is about businesses with a "religious ethos". A bakery is a for-profit business, not a church. The only "religious ethos" is that the owner is a bigot and wants the right to refuse service to people they don't like.
Its not 'subtle' its openly dishonest. it claims there is a problem while saying that on research there is no problem.
Sigh. There is no problem right now. That does not mean that there will never be any problem in the future. Businesses can change owners, bigots can stop feeling compelled to act nice in public once the controversy over this law is old news, etc.
So you still insist the 'threat' is still lurking around the corner. watch out them evil Christians might take over city busineses and close them to gay people. Peregrineland is an uncomfortable place.
In the US things are more prosperous and rational. The vast majority of businesses are open to all clients at all opening hours, and the majority of those who are not have to give specific reasons and criteria, aka substantial burden.
You will always get fringe nutjobs.
It's hardly "fringe nutjobs" when people are eagerly campaigning for the right to discriminate and we aren't all that far from the days of "whites only" signs. Maybe it's hard to believe for you since you don't live in the US, but a lot of people here would like to go back to those days.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Orlanth, what constitutes "significant burden" and what group in society defines that?
Lawyers define it in the context of individual cases, but the true context is the statute Law.
Laws are written by lawyers for lawyers, and presented by politicans, many of whom were also lawyers.
This is admittedly a problem, but its not a problem linked to this law, but the whole system.
It's a law that is vague on purpose so that it can be interpreted to discriminate homosexuals while having plausible deniability. The context is overwhelmingly clear, just like voter ID laws aren't actually about reducing fraud.
Actually I would argue the other way. Discrimination is not a burden, forced participation however is.
Those who use the law to discriminate will have problems if challenged in court.
Those who use the law to protect themselves by non participation will find it easy to for their lawyers to apply 'significant burden' to the presiding judge.
Please remember someone who wants to try to use this law to discriminate will have to account for the fact the plaintiff will have a lawyer also, and will have a hard time explaining why it is necessary in a non participatory way to completely shun someone of an ethos or lifestyle that is not compatible with their religion in most business settings.
Next person to call someone a troll, an oaf, or be generally rude to another user cops a holiday. You disagree with someone? Disagree like an adult. Want to stoop to childish insults and accusations of trolling? You won't be posting for a while.
This thread is already a bit of a gakfight, don't make it worse
It's hypocritical to say that a rape victim should be able to prevent themselves from having the child that was forced on them, but someone who just didn't want to use birth control shouldn't be allowed to use an abortion as their form of birth control? Thanks for the dumbest comment in the thread. And there have been some doozies. And just so you can't just say "I never said that"....
"I think people that are half in on abortion are hypocrites"
Look familiar?
Abortion is not a black and white subject. People who think it is are fething stupid. That's also my opinion, and I won't deny it if questioned that I see it as shades of grey.
Orlanth wrote: Those who use the law to discriminate will have problems if challenged in court.
Not really, because the entire point of the law is to be able to say "look, the law says this is legal" if/when the case goes to court. The only way they might have a problem is if it gets appealed to a higher court and the higher court finds that the law is discriminatory (which is quite likely) and removes it.
Please remember someone who wants to try to use this law to discriminate will have to account for the fact the plaintiff will have a lawyer also, and will have a hard time explaining why it is necessary in a non participatory way to completely shun someone of an ethos or lifestyle that is not compatible with their religion in most business settings.
And again you keep missing the point that this "burden" language is designed to be interpreted as "anything Jesus doesn't like is a burden", even if it doesn't say so explicitly. You seem to be under the impression that the court is going to use a very strict standard for "significant burden", but in reality it's a lot more likely that "I'm not comfortable with that" is going to be accepted without question as long as the person making the claim is a conservative Christian.
timetowaste85 wrote: It's hypocritical to say that a rape victim should be able to prevent themselves from having the child that was forced on them, but someone who just didn't want to use birth control shouldn't be allowed to use an abortion as their form of birth control? Thanks for the dumbest comment in the thread. And there have been some doozies. And just so you can't just say "I never said that"....
Yes. If you're comfortable with abortions in those situations, you should be comfortable with them in all situations. Picking and choosing which is "okay" makes you a hypocrite. It's why I despise politicians on the right that do. A) it's not any of your damn business, and B) if you truly value a life, you should value all life. Not just those for certain situations and circumstances. If you can justify it for rape, then you should be able to for a 14 year old that isn't ready, emotionally or financially, to have a child.
"I think people that are half in on abortion are hypocrites"
Look familiar?
Yes, I wrote that. I stand by it.
Abortion is not a black and white subject. People who think it is are fething stupid. That's also my opinion, and I won't deny it if questioned that I see it as shades of grey.
You're either pro-choice or you aren't. You either believe abortions should be legal in all circumstances or you don't.
timetowaste85 wrote: It's hypocritical to say that a rape victim should be able to prevent themselves from having the child that was forced on them, but someone who just didn't want to use birth control shouldn't be allowed to use an abortion as their form of birth control?
I don't know if it's hypocrisy, but it's not a very consistent standard. In any other context there's no way we'd allow someone to kill another person because it would make them feel better about being the victim of a crime. By arguing that abortion is ok in rape cases you're required to make the argument that the fetus is not a "person" with all of the rights that go along with "personhood". Which is a fair point (and one that is supported by the scientific evidence), but if that's the case then what is the argument against abortions for "birth control" reasons?
And again you keep missing the point that this "burden" language is designed to be interpreted as "anything Jesus doesn't like is a burden", even if it doesn't say so explicitly. You seem to be under the impression that the court is going to use a very strict standard for "significant burden", but in reality it's a lot more likely that "I'm not comfortable with that" is going to be accepted without question as long as the person making the claim is a conservative Christian.
I mean, clearly they won't be able to have a strict standard for "significant burden," right? There's not really any way to adequately quantify it.
Require the signage. Make people that want to be bigots wear it like a scarlet A. But shouldn't they be allowed to be bigots and donkey-caves?
If we take that away doesn't that begin to border on being thought police?
cincydooley wrote: You're either pro-choice or you aren't. You either believe abortions should be legal in all circumstances or you don't.
That's not really true. There are plenty of pro-choice people who are in favor of the vast majority of real-world abortions but wouldn't approve of "aborting" a baby the day before it would be born simply because the mother decided they didn't feel like having a kid anymore.
cincydooley wrote: You're either pro-choice or you aren't. You either believe abortions should be legal in all circumstances or you don't.
That's not really true. There are plenty of pro-choice people who are in favor of the vast majority of real-world abortions but wouldn't approve of "aborting" a baby the day before it would be born simply because the mother decided they didn't feel like having a kid anymore.
But isn't that, then, where we require science to tell us when it's actually a life, legally?
cincydooley wrote: But shouldn't they be allowed to be bigots and donkey-caves?
If we take that away doesn't that begin to border on being thought police?
There's no law against being a bigot. There are laws about refusing to provide services based on certain reasons. And really this is one of those "corporate personhood" things where the business is a separate entity. An individual person can have beliefs, a business can't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: Can you guys take this abortion talk to PM's please?
You are dominating and derailing the thread.
Thanks kindly
It's not entirely off-topic because one of the "religious freedom" issues attached to these laws, even if it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the OP, is conservative Christian doctors/hospitals refusing to provide abortion and birth control because it's against their religious beliefs.
cincydooley wrote: But shouldn't they be allowed to be bigots and donkey-caves?
If we take that away doesn't that begin to border on being thought police?
There's no law against being a bigot. There are laws about refusing to provide services based on certain reasons. And really this is one of those "corporate personhood" things where the business is a separate entity. An individual person can have beliefs, a business can't.
Even if it's a business run by Ma and Pa Hinkle and their two kids? I mean, one would think there should be a reasonable standard from which we allow corporate personhood and when we don't, right? There's a pretty clear difference between a Ma and Pa shop and Microsoft.
cincydooley wrote: Even if it's a business run by Ma and Pa Hinkle and their two kids? I mean, one would think there should be a reasonable standard from which we allow corporate personhood and when we don't, right? There's a pretty clear difference between a Ma and Pa shop and Microsoft.
I think you would get into major legal and tax problems if you divide businesses into "corporate persons" and "part of the owner". For example, if the family business is no longer a separate entity then the division between business and personal assets no longer applies and any lawsuit against the business can go after the owner's house/car/etc, if the business goes bankrupt then the owner's personal property can be taken to pay the debts of the business, etc.
I think you would get into major legal and tax problems if you divide businesses into "corporate persons" and "part of the owner". For example, if the family business is no longer a separate entity then the division between business and personal assets no longer applies and any lawsuit against the business can go after the owner's house/car/etc, if the business goes bankrupt then the owner's personal property can be taken to pay the debts of the business, etc.
That's a good point, but I think in this instance it really needs to be considered, because, lets be honest here, it is those small businesses and those mom n pop shops that would be the ones actually affected by this legislature. I have a very hard time believing any major business would rather discriminate than make money, and quite frankly, I have a lot of trouble believing most small businesses would. Money spends the same.
Regardless, I think we have to protect people's right to be donkey-caves, even in their businesses.
But then again, I don't think I'll ever quite understand the desire to force someone that doesn't want your money to take your money. #whiteprivilege, I suppose.
Peregrine, lets put it this way. According to press reports similar legislation on Religious freedom is already present in neinetten states and is being considered by several more.
With the new law passed this means that 20 states out of 50 now have broadly similar religious freedom laws to Indiana.
So:
either - 2/5 of the USA now has sanctioned gay-bashing and an atmosphere similar to southern states in the 50's towards black people
or - This isnt a problem like some fear it is.
If this legislation had the effects some fear we would have seen it by now, on a large scale.
cincydooley wrote: That's a good point, but I think in this instance it really needs to be considered, because, lets be honest here, it is those small businesses and those mom n pop shops that would be the ones actually affected by this legislature. I have a very hard time believing any major business would rather discriminate than make money, and quite frankly, I have a lot of trouble believing most small businesses would. Money spends the same.
But "we're the ones who are affected most" isn't an excuse in other cases. For example, limits on campaign donations by businesses are probably a much bigger issue for Microsoft than for the local family shop, but we don't say "ok Microsoft, I guess since this is only an issue for you then you don't have to obey the limits".
But then again, I don't think I'll ever quite understand the desire to force someone that doesn't want your money to take your money. #whiteprivilege, I suppose.
Two reasons:
1) There isn't always an easy alternative available. If the only pharmacy in your town decides that birth control is against their religious beliefs then your best-case scenario is having to travel elsewhere, and that can be a major inconvenience. If you're busy with work/family/etc it's pretty easy to prefer "force the local business I don't really agree with to take my money" over "spend an extra hour or two every month driving to the pharmacy in another town".
2) Even when alternatives are available having to shop at different businesses still carries the message of "you're not really one of us". That's part of why "whites only" signs were so bad, even when other businesses were willing to accept non-white customers it still established them as second-class citizens. Separate but equal was inherently unequal, and that's why we don't have those laws/policies anymore.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: If this legislation had the effects some fear we would have seen it by now, on a large scale.
So it's ok if the effects are smaller than feared and/or not very many cases are considered newsworthy for you to see them in the UK?
either - 2/5 of the USA now has sanctioned gay-bashing and an atmosphere similar to southern states in the 50's towards black people
or - This isnt a problem like some fear it is.
You're certainly onto something here. This is largely a problem with the Southern states when you look at the map of what states passed these kind of laws. Racism was and is more prevalant in the Southern states. There is a lot of cross-over in the bigotry bidness.
The South is also geographically the most religious region in the country. Correlation does not equal causation, but it does make one wonder.
Orlanth wrote: If this legislation had the effects some fear we would have seen it by now, on a large scale.
So it's ok if the effects are smaller than feared and/or not very many cases are considered newsworthy for you to see them in the UK?
Then you have to account for the flat fact that for every just law someone will try and use it for an unjust purpose. That doesn't invalidate the need for the law.
How many times has mafia boss got his lawyer to get his client off a charge on a technicality.
Quite a bit it seems.
Why do those technicalities exist?
because they are side effects of essential freedoms.
Taking this case in point religious freedom is important and religious people have the right not to be forced into performing services contrary to their creed. I wish we had more protection like that over here.
If anyone tries to misused the legislation I hope that courts are able to see through this.
Open bigotry can hardly be considered a substantial burden, I hope the first genuine bigot who tries to use this new law to persecute homosexuals gets slapped all round the courthouse. As homophobia is socially taboo nowadays I think that is likely.
Orlanth wrote: If anyone tries to misused the legislation I hope that courts are able to see through this.
Why do you keep assuming that discrimination is an unfortunate misuse of the law instead of being the entire purpose of it? This is why I keep telling you to look at the context of the law instead of just reading the text of it. This is a law proposed and supported by conservative Christians that want to use it to deny service to people they don't approve of.
Orlanth wrote: If anyone tries to misused the legislation I hope that courts are able to see through this.
Why do you keep assuming that discrimination is an unfortunate misuse of the law instead of being the entire purpose of it? This is why I keep telling you to look at the context of the law instead of just reading the text of it. This is a law proposed and supported by conservative Christians that want to use it to deny service to people they don't approve of.
Just look at the video recording of the politician who complained that adding specific language to this bill prohibiting discrimination "made this bill worthless".
d-usa wrote: Just look at the video recording of the politician who complained that adding specific language to this bill prohibiting discrimination "made this bill worthless".
And was that his opinion, or was it the opinion of the majority of those involved in the legislative process?
d-usa wrote: Just look at the video recording of the politician who complained that adding specific language to this bill prohibiting discrimination "made this bill worthless".
And was that his opinion, or was it the opinion of the majority of those involved in the legislative process?
Enough people voted to table it after it became worthless, so interpret that however you like.
Nineteen other states have similar legislation and it is being consider by others.
Nor is the legislation targeted at homosexuals, it permits non-participation on any grounds that offends the religions concerned.
yeah me and a friend of mine were discussing this, what it comes down to is who has what right? where does certain rights end or begin? whos rights deserve consideration? this is a messy situation that will end up going to the Supreme Court.
All of this could be avoided with the proper injection of common sense on both sides. I could care less what anyone else does. But if I happen to disagree with something and you try to force me to provide a service that I don't want to provide for any reason, I fething well promise you I won't do it, damned what any judge says. People on both sides are poking the other trying to get a reaction so they can scream descremination. If someone doesn't want to bake your cake, go to someone else who does. Do you REALLY want to eat it if they were made to do it?
Raven911 wrote: All of this could be avoided with the proper injection of common sense on both sides. I could care less what anyone else does. But if I happen to disagree with something and you try to force me to provide a service that I don't want to provide for any reason, I fething well promise you I won't do it, damned what any judge says. People on both sides are poking the other trying to get a reaction so they can scream descremination. If someone doesn't want to bake your cake, go to someone else who does. Do you REALLY want to eat it if they were made to do it?
So does this mean you're in favor of overturning anti-discrimination laws and going back to the days when businesses could have "whites only" policies?
What if you live in a rural area, and no one wants to rent you an apartment. Like, no one in the entire area, and a judge says that's a-ok because Christianity forbids cohabitation.
It all seems sort of trivial when we are talking about wedding cakes, but that's not the kind of discrimination that hurts most. Id focus on the kind of businesses that people actually need access to for basic needs.
Raven911 wrote: You're comparing race to sexual orientation. Not the same thing.
You think its ok to force someone to do something they don't want to do because someone else gets offended?
If you don't want to serve black people because lets say your an old school Mormon.... If your business provides public accomodations, it's illegal to turn black people down on the basis of their race, because race is a federally protected class.
Raven911 wrote: You're comparing race to sexual orientation. Not the same thing.
Of course it is. And let's look at your own words here:
But if I happen to disagree with something and you try to force me to provide a service that I don't want to provide for any reason, I fething well promise you I won't do it, damned what any judge says.
"For any reason" includes race.
You think its ok to force someone to do something they don't want to do because someone else gets offended?
Yes, and that's the reason we don't have "whites only" signs anymore.
Nineteen other states have similar legislation and it is being consider by others.
Nor is the legislation targeted at homosexuals, it permits non-participation on any grounds that offends the religions concerned.
This is the very definition of discrimination. If you want to treat somebody different then you treat other people for any reason that is not breaking the law you are discriminating against them. Done. Nothing else.
You can have whatever religious beliefs you want. Your religion belongs in your house and your church. You are allowed to talk about it anywhere else you want because free speech, but you cannot ACT on it and it sure as hell stays out of law.
This is hate trying to justify itself and gain legal backing. Or maybe if this law passes some KKK members can start a new religion and start to tell black people they don't "serve their kind here" because of their faith. Ridiculous.
but (devil's advocate here) are people not allowed their own religious beliefs on their personal property?
by your own statement, a persons sexual preference or such could only be allowed in their home and specific establishments, why should a persons sexual choice have precedence over a persons religious beliefs?
how many "Blacks" or "Jews" or any other race other then "white" do you see in the KKK ?
not to mention religions are discriminatory by their very being.
no matter how you look at it, this is not as clear cut as we would like it.
my simple solution, nothing forces people to have to go to said establishments either.
This was put way more eliquently that I could put it. Thank you.
d-usa wrote: Just look at the video recording of the politician who complained that adding specific language to this bill prohibiting discrimination "made this bill worthless".
And was that his opinion, or was it the opinion of the majority of those involved in the legislative process?
Enough people voted to table it after it became worthless, so interpret that however you like.
d-usa wrote: Just look at the video recording of the politician who complained that adding specific language to this bill prohibiting discrimination "made this bill worthless".
And was that his opinion, or was it the opinion of the majority of those involved in the legislative process?
Enough people voted to table it after it became worthless, so interpret that however you like.
Table it as in out it forward for vote?
I think "tabled" in the US is different from the rest of the English speaking world. Here tabling a bill essentially means killing the bill.
d-usa wrote: I think "tabled" in the US is different from the rest of the English speaking world. Here tabling a bill basically essentially means killing the bill.
Thank you. I usually associate tabled with tabling a motion, or putting something forward for a vote.
Table = kill it, which means that more than just the one quoted person believed that removing the ability to discriminate undermined the law so much that it wasn't worth having.
Hopefully it's a true article and the people who say the law isn't just there to discriminate against the gay community enjoy a slice of humble pie and/or a tasty foot.
Freya wrote: Just in case it hadn't been posted yet, conservative Marcus Bachmann just got refused service in Indiana after the store owner assumed he was gay.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I really do wish the term thought police would just go away. Regardless, regulation people's actions is hardly "thought policing"; it's what laws do.
Freya wrote: Just in case it hadn't been posted yet, conservative Marcus Bachmann just got refused service in Indiana after the store owner assumed he was gay.
I'm the worst when it comes to Poe's law, but after fully reading two other articles on that site, I genuinely wouldn't be able to tell it a satire site from a conservative news site.
timetowaste85 wrote: Hopefully it's a true article and the people who say the law isn't just there to discriminate against the gay community enjoy a slice of humble pie and/or a tasty foot.
Actually we expected as much, and posted as such.
The law has not given a green light to homophobia.
But the press has told the people it has.
So bigots are coming out of the woodwiork based on believing the hysteria posted in the press.
It is the fault of media hysteria not Indiana legislation that people have this assumption. they alone are to blame.
Read the law, read what it actually says it would not protect this incident even if the person was gay.
Freya wrote: Ooops looked real to me. Kinda hard to tell these days though I would have loved to see it be true.
A simple google search would have revealed that it wasn't.
You wanted to believe it, so you did.
I did because I thought it was funny. I admit to thinking it was real. At least I'm humble enough to admit when I made a mistake instead of being a disrespectful jerk.
d-usa wrote: I think "tabled" in the US is different from the rest of the English speaking world. Here tabling a bill basically essentially means killing the bill.
Thank you. I usually associate tabled with tabling a motion, or putting something forward for a vote.
Most of us do (it's the term we use on my rugby club's board to say "here's issue X, we've talked about it, now let's vote" or "Person A has brought forth this issue, is there a second? Then this issue has been tabled, and will be addressed"
I did because I thought it was funny. I admit to thinking it was real. At least I'm humble enough to admit when I made a mistake instead of being a disrespectful jerk.
Name calling? Tsk tsk.
Just fact check stuff before you post it as truth. Not super hard in this, the age of instant information. It'll help you out in the OT in the long run.
Lol, I had a football coach in HS tell me a story from his college days where he and a couple buddies couldnt
Its considerably more obvious these days because homophobia is less of an issue, so bars outright advertise that they're primarily catering to the LGBT community.
I did so by looking at the law, what it meant what was read etc.
You read the law and applied inappropriate judgments due to placing it into the context of how things work in the UK, while also ignoring specific legal factors unique to homosexual rights in Indiana.
As I see it, it's not so much an issue with being allowed to refuse service for whatever, but awareness of it.
Say, for example, a ginger couple travelled to the convention interstate or from abroad, with a hotel booked months in advance, they turn up and are refused because the hotel doesn't cater to ginger couples. That's awful, because they are likely going to be completely stuck. Same if they went out for dinner and got kicked it.
However, if the hotel booking made it clear that they had a no ginger couple policy, then they could have booked a ginger friendly place, given their money to someone less bigoted and had a better service.
Everyone is happy (apart from the people who have to declare their bigotry in public, because they'll no doubt lose more customers than just the ones they don't want).
Herzlos wrote: (apart from the people who have to declare their bigotry in public, because they'll no doubt lose more customers than just the ones they don't want)
I can tell from this that you aren't really familiar with US history. This is the country where open "whites only" policies had to be ended at gunpoint (literally, in some cases) by the federal government and a lot of places would gladly go back to those days if they had the opportunity. Yeah, posting a "no gays" sign in San Francisco is probably not going to be very good for business, but there are plenty of places where they'd have the full support of the community. Even within the past five years there have been areas that voted 90% or more in favor of making gay marriage extra illegal with constitutional bans on top of existing laws banning it. Do you really think a business in that kind of area is going to lose many customers over their discrimination? Or care if they do?
Herzlos wrote: You're right, I'm not familiar with most of the US (I've only visited PA/MA). I thought those days were long gone :(
It depends heavily on where you go. Some areas have moved on and anyone openly admitting discrimination (whether racial/anti-gay/whatever) would be shunned, some areas still think the KKK is a good idea and merely disowning your gay children is probably too tolerant of sin. Thankfully the second category is on the wrong end of demographic changes and the US as a whole is getting better, but it's a slow and uneven process.
Herzlos wrote: You're right, I'm not familiar with most of the US (I've only visited PA/MA). I thought those days were long gone :(
Pennsylvania's in the North technically (above the Mason-Dixon line), and while Maryland is just right below the Mason-Dixon line, it is one of the most progressive, educated, and wealthy states in the Union. It's true that racism has become less prevalent in the South in terms of open discrimination, but its still alive and well, and Peregrine is correct, there is a subset of the population who would gladly undo the protections afforded by the Civil Rights Act.
The following article includes a map of which States have enacted similar 'freedom of religion' laws. As you can see, this is largely a Southern phenomenon, although, interestingly, PA and a couple more Northeastern states have done the same thing.
Herzlos wrote: (apart from the people who have to declare their bigotry in public, because they'll no doubt lose more customers than just the ones they don't want)
I can tell from this that you aren't really familiar with US history. This is the country where open "whites only" policies had to be ended at gunpoint (literally, in some cases) by the federal government and a lot of places would gladly go back to those days if they had the opportunity. Yeah, posting a "no gays" sign in San Francisco is probably not going to be very good for business, but there are plenty of places where they'd have the full support of the community. Even within the past five years there have been areas that voted 90% or more in favor of making gay marriage extra illegal with constitutional bans on top of existing laws banning it. Do you really think a business in that kind of area is going to lose many customers over their discrimination? Or care if they do?
You keep trying to paint this law as segregation and it isn't. Whites Only signs on business were able to exist because their were already state and municipal laws on the books that made blacks second class citizens. There was no legal standard to meet to refuse them service or entry a business could bar nonwhites and never have to justify it and those affected had no legal recourse against it.
We have freedom of religion and businesses have always had the right to refuse services for a host of reasons. What are the legal limitations when those two rights coincide? Previously that specific situation wasn't covered under Indiana state law, now it is. Now everyone in Indiana know that there is a legal standard for denying business to a customer based on religious beliefs. If/when the situation arises in Indiana now the business owner knows that a substantial burden on his/her religious beliefs must be proved in a court of law and customers have legal standing to seek redress in a court if they think they were unfairly descriminated against. No business in Indiana can put up a Heterosexuals Only sign on their business and enforce it with impunity under this law. Every time a business denied a LGBT customer or any other customer for religious reasons that business can be taken to court and forced to show proof that the legal standard is met. That is a lot to go through to avoid conducting basic commerce with gay people. I don't know of any evidence from which one could reasonably conclude that there were in fact many businesses in Indiana inclined to go through that legal process just to avoid doing business with any LGBT people.
It would be shocking to see Indiana state courts rule that selling homosexuals widgets for money created a substantial burden on religious beliefs. That kind of ruling would be radically different and far beyond the narrow limitations of the Hobby Lobby precedent.
WIdgets and wedding cakes are one thing. What about housing?
Can a landlord in Indiana now refuse to house a qualified homosexual couple on the basis that they are homosexual, and successfully argue in court that contributing to homosexual cohabitation violates his religious beliefs? Have they always been able to do so?
This is not a 'stretch'. Providing housing to homosexual couples can easily be interpreted as a burden on someone's religion, particularly any religion that lends credence to the Book of Leviticus, and I'd guess this is likely to happen in those localities in Indiana that do not already have protections for homosexuals on the books.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And could landlords refuse to let people who are not married live together? Living in sin and all that.
Yes, at least so far as the federal government is concerned. I don't know too much about individual state laws but generally "Is Single" is not protected status. They don't say you can't refuse to rent to people who are "Living in Sin" or "Wear colors of shirt other than green" or "I'm aware they've drank at least one Dr.Pepper in their life", so you can. I dunno maybe a clever lawyer could argue it was some kind of sex discrimination, which is illegal in housing but I probably wouldn't buy it.
The law does call out "Familial Status" but really just means you can't refuse to rent to someone because they're married, or have kids, or have 20 kids (so long as the house can hold 20 kids).
Indiana still has to follow fair housing laws like every other state.
Good to know. Both of those links produced 404 Errors, incidentally. Are homosexuals protected by federal HUD laws? They are not protected by the Civil Rights Act.
Answer: No
From the same website:
Federal law prohibits housing discrimination based on your race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability.
Once again, sexual orientation is noticeably absent.
Next time try and be honest for a change and quote fully.
I honestly quote the elements of posts I believe are worth criticizing. I don't want to create longs walls of text.
No you don't, or you wouldn't have condenced down a comment I made that in context could clearly be reasonably truthful in order to put forward the highly offensive motion that I lied, because I was a conservative Christian. While that would be offensive of itself, as you are labeling conservative Christians as all thinking the same way, but you were also redirecting my comment to make it seem about something else.
That was low even for you.
Indiana still has to follow fair housing laws like every other state.
Do fair housing laws cover sexual orientation on a federal level? iirc it doesn't. I know they do here in MA, and NY and a few other places I've been but I can't imagine they're universal. Unless Indiana also has a state law along those lines.
Indiana still has to follow fair housing laws like every other state.
Do fair housing laws cover sexual orientation on a federal level? iirc it doesn't. I know they do here in MA, and NY and a few other places I've been but I can't imagine they're universal. Unless Indiana also has a state law along those lines.
Homosexuals are not protected from discrimination by the Fair Housing Act, per the HUD website:
The Fair Housing Act protects people from discrimination when they are renting, buying, or securing financing for any housing. The prohibitions specifically cover discrimination because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability and the presence of children.
Homosexuals are not protected from discrimination by the Fair Housing Act, per the HUD website:
The Fair Housing Act protects people from discrimination when they are renting, buying, or securing financing for any housing. The prohibitions specifically cover discrimination because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability and the presence of children.
Yeah, that's what I thought. Generally speaking full citizenship for homosexuals is still a state-by-state matter. It's hard to generalize to the entire US on any particular issue.
I really have to wonder, for what purpose would this law actually serve if it was introduced without anti-gay intent? There doesn't seem to really be any reason to make a law like this.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I really have to wonder, for what purpose would this law actually serve if it was introduced without anti-gay intent? There doesn't seem to really be any reason to make a law like this.
Hey. Don't be so narrow-minded. Someone might wanna refuse service to transsexuals or sex workers too.
Indiana still has to follow fair housing laws like every other state.
Do fair housing laws cover sexual orientation on a federal level? iirc it doesn't. I know they do here in MA, and NY and a few other places I've been but I can't imagine they're universal. Unless Indiana also has a state law along those lines.
Homosexuals are not protected from discrimination by the Fair Housing Act, per the HUD website:
The Fair Housing Act protects people from discrimination when they are renting, buying, or securing financing for any housing. The prohibitions specifically cover discrimination because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability and the presence of children.
While not covered there specifically, it could probably be covered by UDAAP, which, while was originally specifically for banking, is starting to be applied to other consumer business as well.
The easiest solution to this Civil Rights issue is to broaden the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a protected class.
Then we wouldn't have to find banking laws that "could probably" be construed to protect homosexuals from landlords (seems like a stretch to me), and just use the law that already exists to protect other classes from discrimination.
I'd like to ask proponents of this Indiana bill: Do you think it would be a good idea to protect homosexuals from discrimination by including sexual orientation as a protected category in the Civil Rights Act? If so or if not, why?
jasper76 wrote: The easiest solution to this Civil Rights issue is to broaden the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a protected class.
Then we wouldn't have to find banking laws that "could probably" be construed to protect homosexuals from landlords (seems like a stretch to me), and just use the law that already exists to protect other classes from discrimination.
Doesn't change the fact that many people think you should be allowed to discriminate when it comes to who you participate in commerce with. If I have a hair salon and I refuse to serve blondes, I should be allowed to refuse to serve blondes. I mean gak, we already have "women only" gyms. And no one seems to have a problem with that.
And those blondes in return, can patronize a company that wants their money.
[/url]
