Freedom is really not applicable to Christian businesses!

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

Edna, did you just "come out"?

[ednksu]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/

[ednksu]

Edna, did you just "come out"?

what does it matter to you?  Your right to "freedom" ends at my underlying human principles.

[michigancat]

Are atheists given the freedom to discriminate, or do you have to tie it to a religion?

[ednksu]

Are atheists given the freedom to discriminate, or do you have to tie it to a religion?

reminds me of the satanists who wanted to distribute literature to kids because FL had an exception to allow passive distribution of materials

[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.

then it seems completely stupid to pass and defend

Again, this law applies generally to religious freedom - not to the issue of gay marriage.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Edna just linked a thinkprogress blog post. Your hyperventilation over a law that has no practical effect on gay rights just shows that you have lost all rational thought.

This is based on a law passed in 1993 by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and signed into law by Bill Clinton (to legislatively reverse a SC opinion written by Scalia, btw). But now that RFRAs have been cited (unsuccessfully) in support of discriminatory actions by businesses against gay marriage, IT'S HOLY MOTHER FREAKOUT TIME!!!!

[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

Again, this law applies generally to religious freedom - not to the issue of gay marriage.

It doesn't seem very fair that as an atheist I'm not allowed to kick out customers I find icky.

[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.

then it seems completely stupid to pass and defend

Again, this law applies generally to religious freedom - not to the issue of gay marriage.

It doesn't seem very fair that as an atheist I'm not allowed to kick out customers I find icky.

You are. But if you want to argue that "I refuse to comply with ___ law because it violates my freedom of religion" that's going to be a pretty weak argument if you're an atheist.

[michigancat]

that's discrimination against non-religious people

[Institutional Control]

When WalMart speaks, Arkansas listens.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walmart-takes-firm-stand-arkansas-religious-freedom-bill/story?id=30043531

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/01/govt-and-business-leaders-object-to-ark-religion-bill/70757942/

[Dugout DickStone]

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

Again, this law applies generally to religious freedom - not to the issue of gay marriage.

It doesn't seem very fair that as an atheist I'm not allowed to kick out customers I find icky.

Just pretend to be very religious the same way the people who are refusing service to homosexuals do.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

that's discrimination against non-religious people

No, it's common sense and basic english. Tough to claim a "religious objection" to a law when you don't have a religion. As Dugout suggests, just lie. But you're still probably going to lose your case, just like the vast majority of religious freedom cases.

Ok - now that we're done with the brief interlude of common sense - resume FREAKOUT!

[michigancat]

that's discrimination against non-religious people

Tough to claim a "religious objection" to a law when you don't have a religion.

the point is that a "religious objection" is complete bullshit. It should just be "objection" so anyone that wants can participate without lying.

[Dugout DickStone]

that's discrimination against non-religious people

Tough to claim a "religious objection" to a law when you don't have a religion.

the point is that a "religious objection" is complete bullshit. It should just be "objection" so anyone that wants can participate without lying.

Good point.

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

Does hillary clinton accepting money from the Saudi government, who has criminalized homosexuality, make her anti-gay?

#thinkprogress

[michigancat]

Does hillary clinton accepting money from the Saudi government, who has criminalized homosexuality, make her anti-gay?

#thinkprogress

hillary sucks, she doesn't care about anyone but herself

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

Edna, did you just "come out"?

  Your right to "freedom" ends at my underlying human principles.

What is this?

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

Are atheists given the freedom to discriminate, or do you have to tie it to a religion?

Everyone has the same religious freedom, so long as you're a citizen of the u.s.

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

Does hillary clinton accepting money from the Saudi government, who has criminalized homosexuality, make her anti-gay?

#thinkprogress

hillary sucks, she doesn't care about anyone but herself

I demand outrage over a lack of outrage, then. In this case, it would at least be warranted.

Govt.: you are afforded your religious freedom
proglibs:  that's antigay

Saudi: let's hang another alleged gay and then give hillary $3 million
Proglibs: let's contrive outrage against a Republican run state govt. and call it antigay

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

that's discrimination against non-religious people

Tough to claim a "religious objection" to a law when you don't have a religion.

the point is that a "religious objection" is complete bullshit. It should just be "objection" so anyone that wants can participate without lying.

Good point.

No, it's not a good point. We have a First Amendment right to freedom of religion. There is no such right to object to any law for any reason we choose (at least, not in the print - I dunno, maybe that's one of those bonus "rights" hidden in a penumbra of an emanation in the Constitution).

By definition, an atheist cannot have an objection based upon religion.

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

Bill Clinton signed the law in Arkansas, and the Federal Law Indiana mimicked.

 

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

Atheist is protected under religious freedom (as in the right to abstain from and in that they also believe in a bunch of made up crap), imho.

[michigancat]

that's discrimination against non-religious people

Tough to claim a "religious objection" to a law when you don't have a religion.

the point is that a "religious objection" is complete bullshit. It should just be "objection" so anyone that wants can participate without lying.

Good point.

No, it's not a good point. We have a First Amendment right to freedom of religion. There is no such right to object to any law for any reason we choose (at least, not in the print - I dunno, maybe that's one of those bonus "rights" hidden in a penumbra of an emanation in the Constitution).

By definition, an atheist cannot have an objection based upon religion.

"freedom of religion" also grants the freedom to not practice religion. If I want to discriminate based on my morals, I should be able to even if it isn't based on religion. (if religious people can)

[Institutional Control]

Bill Clinton signed the law in Arkansas, and the Federal Law Indiana mimicked.

 

The bill in Arkansas is similar to the Indiana law, with both diverging in certain respects from the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That act was passed in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, Arkansas’s most famous political son.

But the political context has changed widely since then. The law was spurred by an effort to protect Native Americans in danger of losing their jobs because of religious ceremonies that involved an illegal drug, peyote.