Freedom is really not applicable to Christian businesses!

[ednksu]

Of course you would think that edn it didn't come from one of your pre approved sources and it cuts to your over-the-top hyper reaction.   Legal experts from a litany of highly regarded institutions and entities  are saying over and over that the Indiana law is not a license to discriminate and you of course will not reconcile yourself to the reality that 2 Democratic administrations have played huge roles in making this type of legislation possible. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its plainly obvious that your reciting sources which haven't read the bill or you didn't read the piece from Mich.  If it actually have, and its highly doubtful, how do you reconcile the basic language in the bills being dramatically different?  How do you reconcile that this bill can be used to shield bigots from civil action?  How do you reconcile that this is a new spin on these bills with the terrifying effect of giving more business first amendment rights? (hint this is the first law to act this way post Hobby Lobby so by definition it can't be like the other bills)

And if you really want me to drop the "hyper reaction" of me laughing at your dumbass point, drop the prolib shtick and we can talk like adults. Also be reasonable and stop calling the national review highly respected.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best.  Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.   
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms.  Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.

LOL

Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it.  I mean, read a book.

That's a revisionist view of history, the fact of the matter was that society was headed one way and lawmakers jumped on the tide and passed that law after the fact. You read a rough ridin' book.

lol. Glad to see you never took a history class at k-state.

Also its clear you have no traps on the history of civil rights in this country.  The court cases and law were in tandem with agitation. Please go read about the early history of the naacp ldf and realize that none of it would have been possible without legal action, of any kind, happening first.

Staying crap like this is as dumb as saying slavery was dying out because of economic reasons.

In any case concerning the private sector you are wrong.  Restaurants and hotels were desegregating as a result of economic forces well before the civil rights act.  Schools and civic institutions needed laws passed because they are bureaucratic pits but you can't say the same about the private sector.

I believe this is true for most of the country, but not the deep south.

[ednksu]

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/takei--indiana-law-affects-all-americans-420451907948?cid=sm_fb_msnbc_native
Because this guy doesn't know anything about discrimination. 


Here is the problem that you defenders who claim this is purely religious protection can't reconcile.  If you believe that, why didn't Pence agree that gays shouldn't be discriminated against?  In a simple yes/no question he [Pence] refused to say that all of his citizens' humanity should be protect. Look at who he had with him in the signing ceremony, multiple people connected with the gay hate agenda.

[CNS]

CNN saying Arkansas is most likely signing a very similar bill this morning. 

[HerrSonntag]

Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best.  Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.   
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms.  Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.

LOL

Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it.  I mean, read a book.

That's a revisionist view of history, the fact of the matter was that society was headed one way and lawmakers jumped on the tide and passed that law after the fact. You read a rough ridin' book.

lol. Glad to see you never took a history class at k-state.

Also its clear you have no traps on the history of civil rights in this country.  The court cases and law were in tandem with agitation. Please go read about the early history of the naacp ldf and realize that none of it would have been possible without legal action, of any kind, happening first.

Staying crap like this is as dumb as saying slavery was dying out because of economic reasons.

In any case concerning the private sector you are wrong.  Restaurants and hotels were desegregating as a result of economic forces well before the civil rights act.  Schools and civic institutions needed laws passed because they are bureaucratic pits but you can't say the same about the private sector.

THIS CAN'T GET ANY BETTER

I usually don't do this, but how about a little bit of proof?  I only ask because Heart of Atlanta, the landmark case for desegregating this exact point wasn't until '64.  Because its irrefutable that it took a combination of measures to break open these places culminating in the mid 60s and not as you suggest in the 50s. 

I'll wait for some Napolitano bullshit.

There are plenty of examples of business desegregating without a law telling them they have to.  Not everywhere, not by a long shot, had by the passing of the civil rights but that's the way society was heading anyway. That's the difference with trying to convince someone to change (economics) versus forcing someone to change (law)  it takes time.  It takes time but it's the way a free society should operate.

[steve dave]

I'm having a hard time following where everyone stands on this. Is anyone pro-this-law? There's a lot of anti-this-law and a lot of anger over people being anti-this-law but is anyone taking a strong pro-this-law stance?

Lots of backlash against the backlash but even most of those folks are scared to really say it's a law that is both necessary and well thought out, which I think is a positive sign of progress.

yes, a big ass ship ever so slowly steering away from a path towards bigot island

[ednksu]

Sorry I won't kowtow to your narrative edn, however it's all duly noted, but I've also read the words of legal experts (with no real skin in the game and of which many are pro marriage for anybody etc. etc.) from IU Law, Stanford Law, UVA Law and elsewhere who are saying that the Indiana law does not shield "bigots" from legal action.    This is all part and parcel to what I was saying earlier that it's absurd to draw any concrete conclusions and these state laws only add to the legal minutia that will have to be sorted through in the courts.

I would like t see these sources, please.  Because the actual text of these documents tells a radically different story.  The proponents of this bill tell a radically different story.  The refusal of Pence to say he would protect all of his citizens tells a radically different story.  I get that you want this bill to be about protecting religious liberty but all the circumstances around it say otherwise.  It seems like you are looking for the good and unstated possibility in a rotten bill.

[ednksu]

Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best.  Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.   
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms.  Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.

LOL

Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it.  I mean, read a book.

That's a revisionist view of history, the fact of the matter was that society was headed one way and lawmakers jumped on the tide and passed that law after the fact. You read a rough ridin' book.

lol. Glad to see you never took a history class at k-state.

Also its clear you have no traps on the history of civil rights in this country.  The court cases and law were in tandem with agitation. Please go read about the early history of the naacp ldf and realize that none of it would have been possible without legal action, of any kind, happening first.

Staying crap like this is as dumb as saying slavery was dying out because of economic reasons.

In any case concerning the private sector you are wrong.  Restaurants and hotels were desegregating as a result of economic forces well before the civil rights act.  Schools and civic institutions needed laws passed because they are bureaucratic pits but you can't say the same about the private sector.

THIS CAN'T GET ANY BETTER

I usually don't do this, but how about a little bit of proof?  I only ask because Heart of Atlanta, the landmark case for desegregating this exact point wasn't until '64.  Because its irrefutable that it took a combination of measures to break open these places culminating in the mid 60s and not as you suggest in the 50s. 

I'll wait for some Napolitano bullshit.

There are plenty of examples of business desegregating without a law telling them they have to.  Not everywhere, not by a long shot, had by the passing of the civil rights but that's the way society was heading anyway. That's the difference with trying to convince someone to change (economics) versus forcing someone to change (law)  it takes time.  It takes time but it's the way a free society should operate.

This is the inherent problem with the neo-libertarian's fixation with economic forces: they have never worked to achieve the large scale enfranchisement of all citizen.  I poke at you with the Napolitano comment because this is the same line of reasoning he has for saying Lincoln was a tyrant etc etc (which coincidentally was literally laughed at by one of the preeminent historian on the subject, Eric Foner).  The South was not going to change.  These people are not going to change.  The very least the law can do is make it more onerous for them to practice public discrimination. I will agree that many parts of the country were changing, but I would then argue that that pressure put the most ardent Southerners in a more defensive position and caused their views to harden and lash-out more at the people agitating for their rights.

The fact remains that the largest pushes for freedom in society are not through economic means but through civil action against the structures which maintain this aggression towards it citizens.  There has never been a case in history where purely economic forces have allowed for the expansion of rights to a large swath of people.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I'm having a hard time following where everyone stands on this. Is anyone pro-this-law? There's a lot of anti-this-law and a lot of anger over people being anti-this-law but is anyone taking a strong pro-this-law stance?

Lots of backlash against the backlash but even most of those folks are scared to really say it's a law that is both necessary and well thought out, which I think is a positive sign of progress.

I think it's a positive and well thought out law to simply codify the common law that the government cannot substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity 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's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that 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 compelling governmental interest.

This already well established law, both pursuant to common law and the federal religious freedom act. The only thing this law does in addition to the federal law is to define "person" as including certain business entities as well as individuals.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) 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.

This too is already supported by the USSC's recent Hobby Lobby Obamacare decision (which the libtards threw a complete hissy fit about).

The law is not a "license to discriminate" - it simply codifies a legal framework for deciding religious freedom cases.

[massofcatfan]

The south started to change after the civil war, so governments passed Jim Crow laws to force businesses to discriminate, and the Supreme Court of the United States upheld these separate-but-equal laws over opposition from a private business that just wanted to make money.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

What is the law in issue? Most of this thread is tl:dnr or just pit-y as eff (Edna posts).

Are we trying to force churches to say they approve of guys again? Or is this a bakery can refuse service to prolific homosexuals thing? Because neither scenario ought to be the basis of legislation.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The south started to change after the civil war, so governments passed Jim Crow laws to force businesses to discriminate, and the Supreme Court of the United States upheld these separate-but-equal laws over opposition from a private business that just wanted to make money.

Again, this simply isn't anywhere near the same thing. Gay rights activists are ginning up hysteria over this law and the media (and those who read the media without a legal education or common sense) are blindly following along. If you actually read the law, it doesn't give anyone license to discriminate - it simply codifies the "compelling interest" balancing test that is already federal and common law. It also clarifies that freedom of religion applies to business owners whether owned as a sole prop, llc, partnership, closely held corporation, etc., just like what was held in Hobby Lobby.

I personally believe that businesses should have the right to refuse service based on religious moral objections. A wedding photographer, should have the right to choose not to photohraph a gay wedding based on religious objections. A printer who is pro-life should have the right to not print fliers for an abortion provider. A pro-life business should not be required to purchase insurance which provides abortion coverage. This just seems like common sense to me. Liberals seem to be the anti-choice party, unless it's the choice they agree with.

But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws, so this Indiana RFRA is completely irrelevant to the gay rights issue.

[Dugout DickStone]

I'm having a hard time following where everyone stands on this. Is anyone pro-this-law? There's a lot of anti-this-law and a lot of anger over people being anti-this-law but is anyone taking a strong pro-this-law stance?

Lots of backlash against the backlash but even most of those folks are scared to really say it's a law that is both necessary and well thought out, which I think is a positive sign of progress.

I think it's a positive and well thought out law to simply codify the common law that the government cannot substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity 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's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that 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 compelling governmental interest.

This already well established law, both pursuant to common law and the federal religious freedom act. The only thing this law does in addition to the federal law is to define "person" as including certain business entities as well as individuals.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) 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.

This too is already supported by the USSC's recent Hobby Lobby Obamacare decision (which the libtards threw a complete hissy fit about).

The law is not a "license to discriminate" - it simply codifies a legal framework for deciding religious freedom cases.

So why was time and money spent passing this thing?  It is going to hurt the state ultimately.

[michigancat]

But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws

I like that you keep repeating this like it's a good thing

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws

I like that you keep repeating this like it's a good thing

I'm not repeating it like it's a good thing or bad thing. It is a fact. And because of that fact, this Indiana RFRA law is almost completely irrelevant.

[michigancat]

But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws

I like that you keep repeating this like it's a good thing

I'm not repeating it like it's a good thing or bad thing. It is a fact. And because of that fact, this Indiana RFRA law is almost completely irrelevant.

then it seems completely stupid to pass and defend

[ChiComCat]

I don't believe a business has religious beliefs.

[ednksu]

The south started to change after the civil war, so governments passed Jim Crow laws to force businesses to discriminate, and the Supreme Court of the United States upheld these separate-but-equal laws over opposition from a private business that just wanted to make money.

Again, this simply isn't anywhere near the same thing. Gay rights activists are ginning up hysteria over this law and the media (and those who read the media without a legal education or common sense) are blindly following along. If you actually read the law, it doesn't give anyone license to discriminate - it simply codifies the "compelling interest" balancing test that is already federal and common law. It also clarifies that freedom of religion applies to business owners whether owned as a sole prop, llc, partnership, closely held corporation, etc., just like what was held in Hobby Lobby.

I personally believe that businesses should have the right to refuse service based on religious moral objections. A wedding photographer, should have the right to choose not to photohraph a gay wedding based on religious objections. A printer who is pro-life should have the right to not print fliers for an abortion provider. A pro-life business should not be required to purchase insurance which provides abortion coverage. This just seems like common sense to me. Liberals seem to be the anti-choice party, unless it's the choice they agree with.

But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws, so this Indiana RFRA is completely irrelevant to the gay rights issue.

90% of corporations in the US are closely held dumbass. Quit trying to make it look like you're sticking up for mom and pop.

And no one is saying you have to do business with anyone (your sides hysteria).  They are saying you can't deny them because of their humanity. 

And you continue to ignore who authored, pushed, and endorsed this bill as you spout that it wasn't about gay rights.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

 :horrorsurprise:What if your business is hooker and you want to deny service to people with aids?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

What if your a gay couple that owns a printing company in Topeka and the Phelps want to hire you to print a "God Hates mommies" sign?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

What if you're the New York Times and you want to offer advertising space at one rate to democrats and a substantially higher rate to republicans (actually happened)?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

These are all 1st amendment issues. Unless the person, whether acting as individual or through their business, is a common carrier or utility, it's completely futile and misguided to try and force people to do something in violation of their constitutional rights. Regardless of how unreasonable or unconscionable it is.

You would think the libtards would understand the gravity of making exceptions to the first amendment. I guess they've swung so far police state their minds are clouded.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws

I like that you keep repeating this like it's a good thing

I'm not repeating it like it's a good thing or bad thing. It is a fact. And because of that fact, this Indiana RFRA law is almost completely irrelevant.

then it seems completely stupid to pass and defend

Which is to say it's completely stupid to be outraged and opposed by it.  Congrats

[michigancat]

But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws

I like that you keep repeating this like it's a good thing

I'm not repeating it like it's a good thing or bad thing. It is a fact. And because of that fact, this Indiana RFRA law is almost completely irrelevant.

then it seems completely stupid to pass and defend

Which is to say it's completely stupid to be outraged and opposed by it.  Congrats

there's that outrage against the outrage we love.

[ednksu]

 
Quit acting like this is really anything but a "mom and pop" issue . . . an issue that has and will arise so rarely it will barely even be noticed by the vast societal landscape.   A society that has a vast repertoire of remedies should any discriminatory issues arise (and all probability a copious degree of existing laws/rights will have been violated/trampled before FRPA even enters the picture). . . and I am enjoying how the fact that these types of laws have allowed numerous people from all walks of life/skin color/religions/orientations etc. etc. to seek recourse when the MAN has tried to keep them down is being almost completely ignored.

Show me all those laws protecting the gblt community, I'll wait.
Hint: Its not a protected class.




And to answer Fake's strawman: Your rights end where mine begin.  No one is trying to do anything you are suggesting.