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.

 cincydooley wrote:

 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.

 cincydooley wrote:

 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?

As a slow, I'm still not getting past the fact that we used that word.

This is why we can't have nice things, folks.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

The wording othe law is the context of the law. Laws are the ultimate RAW.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

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.*

A "yes" would have sufficed.

 cincydooley wrote:
A "yes" would have sufficed.

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.

And this is how it went down in another state:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/27/3639808/georgia-religious-liberty-bill-dies-glorious-death/

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.”

 Frazzled wrote:


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"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


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.

Still, all I can think of is Soup Nazi.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
A "yes" would have sufficed.

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.

 dogma wrote:

 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:

 dogma wrote:

 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.

That and the fact that they bleed acid.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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?

There is no correlation between the two.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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 can relax, thats not whats happening here.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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:

http://files.gencon.com/Letter_to_Attendees.pdf

'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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheMeanDM wrote:

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.

 d-usa wrote:
And this is how it went down in another state:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/27/3639808/georgia-religious-liberty-bill-dies-glorious-death/

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.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
[

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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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?

 Peregrine wrote:


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.

Can you guys take this abortion talk to PM's please?

You are dominating and derailing the thread.

Thanks kindly

 Peregrine wrote:

 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?

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.