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.
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.
-"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!
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 thought so. Thanks, Frazzled!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/27 14:09:34
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/27 14:17:59
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Ahtman wrote: 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:
Er...so is that different than any other day in Indiana?
All you Yankees look alike to me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/27 14:18:10
-"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!
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/27 14:17:32
-"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!
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/27 14:43:58
-"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!
djones520 wrote: You're pointing to things that happened 500 years ago, to say that society hasn't progressed?
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.
-"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: 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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/27 14:53:09
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
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
-"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!
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...
This is why the bill is justly about freedom, not repression.
That's what the Confederacy said when they started a war because they were afraid the Union would'nt let them own slaves.
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?)
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"?
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?) 