Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
d-usa wrote: If you want to pretend that all these laws exist in complete and utter isolation from one another despite being extremely similar and being proposed by a very similar demographic and backed by the same groups from state to state then please feel free to continue to do so.
What one legislator, in a completely separate jurisdiction, opined has no bearing on the Indiana law unless he was somehow in a position to draft or vote for it. It is a completely separate legislative process. If you have some evidence he influenced this matter then I may re-visit my position. Until then all you are asking me to do is speculate.
Indiana Pizzeria Faces Backlash After Saying It Won’t Cater Gay Weddings
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork.com) — There’s no such thing as bad publicity right?
One Indiana pizzeria is going to find out.
The O’Connor family owns Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana.
According to CBS Cleveland, family members say they agree with Gov. Mike Pence that the bill does not encourage discrimination against gays and lesbians.
“We’re not discriminating against anyone, that’s just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything,” O’Connor told WBND.
The family has owned the pizzeria for nine years andsupports the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Kevin O’Connor said the negative backlash against Indiana is not fair.
“That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?” O’Connor told the station.
The family did say that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came into Memories, they wouldn’t be turned away, according to CBS Cleveland.
That wasn’t enough for Yelp users who trolled the pizzeria, as well as one gay dating website .
Many Yelp users from around the globe gave the pizzeria 1 star and one even called it “The best gay bar in town.”
“Wally G” said, “Five stars for the proprietors imagining that a gay wedding would ever require the catering services of a local pizza joint. Ha-ha. ”
“Dave B” said, “I’ll order my Double Stuffed crust pizza without the hate, elsewhere!”
“Bruce L” added, Terrible place, owners chose to be heterosexual. The biggest bigots are the most closeted. No gay man or woman is going to order pizza for a wedding. These people should be put out of business .
Others uploaded pictures of scantily clad men.
Also, if you do a Google search for Memories Pizza, the first result may surprise you: It’s for Gaybearfinder.com, a site where men can search for and find other “bears,” — slang for hairy, muscular men.
The Yelp backlash comes a day after Gov. Andrew Cuomo has banned all nonessential, state-funded travel to Indiana after the state adopted a religious freedom law that critics say opens the door to discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Conn. Gov. Dannel Malloy issued a similar ban on Monday.
Up to 32k+ now...
But, the comments... yeesh!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/02 02:21:28
d-usa wrote: I redirect you to the complaint by the esteemed state legislator who complained that not letting you discriminate renders his proposed copy of these laws useless.
I redirect you to this same esteemed state legislator, who hails from Georgia, and ask again what his opinions have to do with the Indiana legislation
And States Rights wasn't a dog whistle for Racism...</sarcasm>
d-usa wrote: I redirect you to the complaint by the esteemed state legislator who complained that not letting you discriminate renders his proposed copy of these laws useless.
I redirect you to this same esteemed state legislator, who hails from Georgia, and ask again what his opinions have to do with the Indiana legislation
If you want to pretend that all these laws exist in complete and utter isolation from one another despite being extremely similar and being proposed by a very similar demographic and backed by the same groups from state to state then please feel free to continue to do so.
SCOTUS ruled that the penalty fines in the ACA legislation imposed a substantial burden on Hobby Lobby's business and exerted pressure on the Greens to violate their religious beliefs. There is a vast amount of media coverage on the case and publicly disclosed court documents you are free to google and peruse at your leisure that show this. I can't track it all down on my phone for you at the moment but it certainly isn't hard to find.
If all of the RFRA legislation passed in half the states already is specifically targeted at legalizing anti LGBT discrimination then why hasn't there been a single instance of it being done under the auspices of a RFRA law yet? The laws have been on the books for decades already.
If all of the RFRA legislation passed in half the states already is specifically targeted at legalizing anti LGBT discrimination then why hasn't there been a single instance of it being done under the auspices of a RFRA law yet? The laws have been on the books for decades already.
Because the existing RFRAs weren't designed for discrimination. They were meant to protect Native Americans peyote use from the government. The use of RFRA as a discriminatory tactic is a recent development. It was tried and failed in New Mexico. The new style RFRAs are a direct result of that failure. The language was specifically changed in order to counter the New Mexico ruling that the RFRA can't be used when the government is not a party. As well as adding to the types of legal entities that can claim a RFRA based defense. The authors of these new RFRAs have been very opposed to any amendment to them that would prevent their discriminatory use, and if such language was added. the bills lost any momentum to get them passed.
Stop conflating the existing laws and their jurisprudence with the newer ones. They were designed for different purposes with key differences in language and in a different climate in terms of gay civil rights. In fact, in an open letter from some IU law professors to the governor, they pointed out how this new law would trash all the existing legal precedent on religious freedom in the state of Indiana. It creates an entire new playing field in the state, so you can't look at what has been done in Indiana, and say "not a problem." You don't stir things up that much without some type of end goal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/02 12:22:32
CaulynDarr wrote: Because the existing RFRAs weren't designed for discrimination. They were meant to protect Native Americans peyote use from the government. The use of RFRA as a discriminatory tactic is a recent development. It was tried and failed in New Mexico. The new style RFRAs are a direct result of that failure. The language was specifically changed in order to counter the New Mexico ruling that the RFRA can't be used when the government is not a party.
How was the Indiana law "designed for discrimination"? Please be specific and cite relevant portions of SB 101.
Are you aware that SB 101, even if invoked between two private parties, invites the government or a political subdivision of the government to respond?
CaulynDarr wrote: As well as adding to the types of legal entities that can claim a RFRA based defense.
This "adding new types of legal entities" is a misnomer. What the Indiana law did was to reiterate that after the Hobby Lobby case private corporations could, under certain circumstances, hold religious beliefs. The Indiana law is merely reflecting what the Supreme Court has set into law prior.
CaulynDarr wrote: Because the existing RFRAs weren't designed for discrimination. They were meant to protect Native Americans peyote use from the government. The use of RFRA as a discriminatory tactic is a recent development. It was tried and failed in New Mexico. The new style RFRAs are a direct result of that failure. The language was specifically changed in order to counter the New Mexico ruling that the RFRA can't be used when the government is not a party.
How was the Indiana law "designed for discrimination"? Please be specific and cite relevant portions of SB 101.
Are you aware that SB 101, even if invoked between two private parties, invites the government or a political subdivision of the government to respond?
CaulynDarr wrote: As well as adding to the types of legal entities that can claim a RFRA based defense.
This "adding new types of legal entities" is a misnomer. What the Indiana law did was to reiterate that after the Hobby Lobby case private corporations could, under certain circumstances, hold religious beliefs. The Indiana law is merely reflecting what the Supreme Court has set into law prior.
Stop with the trick questions. We all know that it isn't literally written in the law. You haven't won that point, you're just being a sea loin. The text of the law that has the effect of being a discriminatory shield has been shown. In 2015, even in Indiana and Arkansas, you can't get away with writing overtly discriminatory laws. You have to wrap it up in a nice little bow of plausible deniability and hope no one notices until it's too late.
It's expanding on the the Hobby Lobby ruling. That was still only closely held private companies. This gives public cooperation that same right. These seemingly little small differences have that effect. They are Trojan horses designed to look innocuous, but have large end effects.
Looks like the derp derp pizza joint got more publicity tha it was bargaining for and shut down, maybe personally.
Good. It was a BS stunt. No one buys pizza for a wedding.
Not like us. We had our reception in a barbeque joint. It was awesome.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
d-usa wrote: I redirect you to the complaint by the esteemed state legislator who complained that not letting you discriminate renders his proposed copy of these laws useless.
I redirect you to this same esteemed state legislator, who hails from Georgia, and ask again what his opinions have to do with the Indiana legislation
And States Rights wasn't a dog whistle for Racism...</sarcasm>
States Rights aren't a dog whistle for anything. There's nothing racist about the 10th Amendment and the fact that states rights are an integral part of federalism. Since the ratification of the constitution states have had a right to a certain level of autonomy.
CaulynDarr wrote: Stop with the trick questions. We all know that it isn't literally written in the law. You haven't won that point, you're just being a sea loin. The text of the law that has the effect of being a discriminatory shield has been shown. In 2015, even in Indiana and Arkansas, you can't get away with writing overtly discriminatory laws. You have to wrap it up in a nice little bow of plausible deniability and hope no one notices until it's too late.
Asking you to show how the law is discriminatory is not a trick question. It's a direct challenge to your argument. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to show some examples of " text of the law that has the effect of being a discriminatory shield has been shown", especially given the fact that no such case has ever succeeded under a RFRA
CaulynDarr wrote: It's expanding on the the Hobby Lobby ruling. That was still only closely held private companies. This gives public cooperation that same right. These seemingly little small differences have that effect. They are Trojan horses designed to look innocuous, but have large end effects.
The owners still have to demonstrate that a corporation
"exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by:
(i) an individual; or
(ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes"
(Section 7)
So in the case of a publicly traded company there still must be "control and substantial ownership". That significantly reduces the number of public corporations and the like who can use legislation, so your claim of "large end effects" is not looking credible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Not like us. We had our reception in a barbeque joint. It was awesome.
Our reception was a tailgate party
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/02 13:45:24
CaulynDarr wrote: Because the existing RFRAs weren't designed for discrimination. They were meant to protect Native Americans peyote use from the government. The use of RFRA as a discriminatory tactic is a recent development. It was tried and failed in New Mexico. The new style RFRAs are a direct result of that failure. The language was specifically changed in order to counter the New Mexico ruling that the RFRA can't be used when the government is not a party.
How was the Indiana law "designed for discrimination"? Please be specific and cite relevant portions of SB 101.
Are you aware that SB 101, even if invoked between two private parties, invites the government or a political subdivision of the government to respond?
CaulynDarr wrote: As well as adding to the types of legal entities that can claim a RFRA based defense.
This "adding new types of legal entities" is a misnomer. What the Indiana law did was to reiterate that after the Hobby Lobby case private corporations could, under certain circumstances, hold religious beliefs. The Indiana law is merely reflecting what the Supreme Court has set into law prior.
Stop with the trick questions. We all know that it isn't literally written in the law. You haven't won that point, you're just being a sea loin. The text of the law that has the effect of being a discriminatory shield has been shown. In 2015, even in Indiana and Arkansas, you can't get away with writing overtly discriminatory laws. You have to wrap it up in a nice little bow of plausible deniability and hope no one notices until it's too late.
It's expanding on the the Hobby Lobby ruling. That was still only closely held private companies. This gives public cooperation that same right. These seemingly little small differences have that effect. They are Trojan horses designed to look innocuous, but have large end effects.
If it's not literally in the law then the law doesn't allow for LGBT descrimination. That's how laws work, there is no figurative legal standing, the law only exists as it is written.
RFRA laws only come into play when a party feels aggreived that they are being compelled to act against their relgious convictions or their ability to practice their religion is being impeded or prevented.
Is there a single state or federal law that would compel a private citizen or private business in Indiana to interact with a member of the LGBT communinty? Without an outside force requiring an individual or business in act in a way contrary to their relgious beliefs there is no legal grounds to invoke a RFRA law.
It is in fact, literally impossible to use a RFRA law as legal justification to refuse to engage in a voluntary association with somebody. Since there is no law that requires businesses to participate in weddings there are no grounds to use a RFRA law to allow a business to refuse to participate in a wedding. Voluntary associations are voluntary so there is no need to pass a law that would never come into play to prevent people from engaging in voluntary associations.
RFRA laws are reactive, they only come into play after an external force has been applied to the party seeking protection under the RFRA law. It's impossible to use a RFRA law to do whatever you want because RFRA are specifically written to prevent outside forces from burdening you with violating your religion or inhibiting/prohibiting the practicing of your religion. Two completely different scenarios.
d-usa wrote: I redirect you to the complaint by the esteemed state legislator who complained that not letting you discriminate renders his proposed copy of these laws useless.
I redirect you to this same esteemed state legislator, who hails from Georgia, and ask again what his opinions have to do with the Indiana legislation
And States Rights wasn't a dog whistle for Racism...</sarcasm>
States Rights aren't a dog whistle for anything. There's nothing racist about the 10th Amendment and the fact that states rights are an integral part of federalism. Since the ratification of the constitution states have had a right to a certain level of autonomy.
Yes...States Rights was used as a dog whustle for racism just like religious freedom is a dog whistle for wanting to discriminate against people who don't follow a specific brand of Christianity...Or needing admitting privledges to 'protect women' is really an attempt to restrict abortions...It's all the same song and dance...
d-usa wrote: I redirect you to the complaint by the esteemed state legislator who complained that not letting you discriminate renders his proposed copy of these laws useless.
I redirect you to this same esteemed state legislator, who hails from Georgia, and ask again what his opinions have to do with the Indiana legislation
And States Rights wasn't a dog whistle for Racism...</sarcasm>
States Rights aren't a dog whistle for anything. There's nothing racist about the 10th Amendment and the fact that states rights are an integral part of federalism. Since the ratification of the constitution states have had a right to a certain level of autonomy.
Yes...States Rights was used as a dog whustle for racism just like religious freedom is a dog whistle for wanting to discriminate against people who don't follow a specific brand of Christianity...Or needing admitting privledges to 'protect women' is really an attempt to restrict abortions...It's all the same song and dance...
Demonstrably false but that's ok since we live in an awesome country that allows citizens to hold whatever beliefs they choose.
Can you actually prove that wrong then? Because, from my understanding, states rights was often used as a argument to protect slavery and segregation. Not a good or factualy correct argument, mind you, but an argument never the less.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
It takes willfull ignorance to say that this isn't about trying to discriminate against gays. It may backfire like the one school choosing to cancel a relugious freedom fair because Satanists wanted to participate. But the intention is there.
skyth wrote: It takes willfull ignorance to say that this isn't about trying to discriminate against gays. It may backfire like the one school choosing to cancel a relugious freedom fair because Satanists wanted to participate. But the intention is there.
Its already backfired if you ask me. It's shining a big huge spotlight on the fact that sexual orientation is not a protected class in terms of major civil rights bills. Governor Hutchinson has stated he is considering an executive order barring discrimination in the workplace, and the Indiana legislation will soon likely be revised to explicitly state that it cannot be used to justify discrimination.
By seeking sanction to discriminate against homosexuals, the religious right may very well be responsible for the creation of legislation explicitly stating that they cannot do so.
In that respect, this whole fiasco may well end up being a net positive for the Civil rights movement and the codification of sexual orientation as a protected category, which, quite frankly, should have happen long ago.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/02 14:34:05
Manchu wrote: I don't see the need to argue about the obvious:
- some people want the government to allow them to discriminate against gays
- some people want the government to trample on certain people's freedom of religion
A concise, clear summary.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Religious freedom can be tough precisely because looking at an issue from someone else's POV can be tough. For some people, there is a contradiction between their religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful on the one hand and associating themselves and their livelihood with public celebrations of homosexual relationships on the other. For these people, non-discrimination laws amount to the government forcing them to violate their consciences. You may not find their POV compelling or even coherent but that is beside the point. If we only cared about protecting the religious beliefs that make sense in our commercialized and oversentimental media, we would not need freedom of religion at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/02 14:40:07
Co'tor Shas wrote: Can you actually prove that wrong then? Because, from my understanding, states rights was often used as a argument to protect slavery and segregation. Not a good or factualy correct argument, mind you, but an argument never the less.
Most of the declarations of secession and the constitution of the Confederate States of America all specifically call out the practice of slavery as being an integral right within the Confederacy and a key reason for their desire to secede. In later years, (1920s-1940s) southern academics and scholars put forth the argument that while slavery was immoral the wider argument for states rights and their incorporation into the culture of agrarian country life were valid and noble. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Agrarians The effort to revise history to portray the Confederacy as a noble stand against industrialization and an over reaching central govt may hold some truth but the leaders of the Confederacy made no effort to hide the fact that maintaining the practice of slavery was the driving force behind the formation of the Confederacy. The Confederacy didn't make any attempt to hide their racsim it was overt and public.
The same can be said of segregation. There was no hiding the racism of segregation behind states rights. Segregation was always blatantly racist and everyone knew it. Everyone knew that the word segregation meant segregating people along racial lines. Everyone knew that segregation was state sponsored institutionalized racism but since racist views were so widely held nationally, nobody cared enough to try to change it for a hundred years.
It's been my, admittingly anecdotal, experience that people often use the states rights = racism dog whistle argument to counter the proponents of constitutional governance, libertarianism and greater degrees of liberty for both individuals and states. Of course, that's a topic that's not really germane to this particular thread.
skyth wrote: It takes willfull ignorance to say that this isn't about trying to discriminate against gays. It may backfire like the one school choosing to cancel a relugious freedom fair because Satanists wanted to participate. But the intention is there.
Its already backfired if you ask me. It's shining a big huge spotlight on the fact that sexual orientation is not a protected class in terms of major civil rights bills. Governor Hutchinson has stated he is considering an executive order barring discrimination in the workplace, and the Indiana legislation will soon likely be revised to explicitly state that it cannot be used to justify discrimination.
By seeking sanction to discriminate against homosexuals, the religious right may very well be responsible for the creation of legislation explicitly stating that they cannot do so.
In that respect, this whole fiasco may well end up being a net positive for the Civil rights movement and the codification of sexual orientation as a protected category, which, quite frankly, should have happen long ago.
If there are no laws compelling people in Indiana to interact with members of the LGBT community in a manner that conflicts with their religious beliefs then there are no grounds for people in Indiana to use the RFRA law to give them legal grounds to refuse to interact with members of the LGBT community.
Is there any evidence of widespread anti LGBT sentiment in Indiana? Are LGBT people currently living in Indiana being descriminated against? What part of Indiana's RFRA law would make more people in Indiana behave in an anti LGBT manner?
Why the outrage over hypothetical situations that have yet to show any evidence of being possible or probable?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/02 14:50:50
Manchu wrote: Religious freedom can be tough precisely because looking at an issue from someone else's POV can be tough. For some people, there is a contradiction between their religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful on the one hand and associating themselves and their livelihood with public celebrations of homosexual relationships on the other. For these people, non-discrimination laws amount to the government forcing them to violate their consciences. You may not find their POV compelling or even coherent but that is beside the point. If we only cared about protecting the religious beliefs that make sense in our commercialized and oversentimental media, we would not need freedom of religion at all.
No one is forcing anyone to go into a business that provides public accomadations. People that make that choice already cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, and national origin, even though doing so may hypothetically violate their religious beliefs. I'd just like to see sexual orientation added to the list.
whitedragon wrote: Is this similar to how Creationism has morphed into Intelligent Design to more easily slip into the curriculum?
That's a much more complicated issue as different schools are public or private and different municipalities and states have different methods of determining the approved curriculum for public schools and private school accreditation. Neither creationism nor intelligent design was taught in any of my K-12 schools or in any other public schools that my friends attended. For people who grew up in a different state that might no be true.
Manchu wrote: Religious freedom can be tough precisely because looking at an issue from someone else's POV can be tough. For some people, there is a contradiction between their religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful on the one hand and associating themselves and their livelihood with public celebrations of homosexual relationships on the other. For these people, non-discrimination laws amount to the government forcing them to violate their consciences. You may not find their POV compelling or even coherent but that is beside the point. If we only cared about protecting the religious beliefs that make sense in our commercialized and oversentimental media, we would not need freedom of religion at all.
No one is forcing anyone to go into a business that provides public accomadations. People that make that choice already cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, and national origin, even though doing so may hypothetically violate their religious beliefs. I'd just like to see sexual orientation added to the list.
Even if you added sexual orientation you wouldn't necessarily avoid RFRA laws shielding "descrimination" against them. Is a wedding a religious ceremony? Is being involved in staging a wedding as a caterer or florist or photographer etc constitute participation in that relgious ceremony? Can a private citizen or private business be compelled to participate in a religious ceremony against their conscience?
Chik fil A is a private corporation whose owners are devout Christians who have made personal donations to churches that fund foundations that are against gay marriage. Chik fil A restaurants have no problem serving LGBT people who come to their restaurants even though LGBT people aren't part of a protected class. Even if LGBT people become a protected class do they have a legal right to compel Chik fil A to cater their homosexual wedding? Catering a wedding a different from providing service within the restaurant. Where is the line drawn?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: That's why I used the past tense that states-rights WAS used for racism, not that it currently is.
The biggest dog whistle for racism right now is complaining about lazy welfare receipients.
Most of the lazy welfare receipients I know personally are white. The system is still seriously flawed, the demographics of the receipients just change depending on the location in question.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/02 15:15:00
@PJ: Don't have answers to all to all of your questions, but if the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act are amended to include sexual orientation, then at least homosexuals would have the same baseline protections available to the rest of us.
After that, the courts can figure out the details of whether a baker is taking part in a Religious ceremony by virtue of baking a cake, and other similar questions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/02 15:19:38
