Freedom is really not applicable to Christian businesses!

[CNS]

98.1 in KC said that The Church of Cannabis just filed and received recognition as a church in Indiana and they list Cannabis as their sacrament.  Sounds like week will now be protected as a religious practice in Indiana, unless they are April 1'ing everyone.

[CNS]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/03/30/the-first-church-of-cannabis-was-approved-after-indianas-religious-freedom-law-was-passed/

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

98.1 in KC said that The Church of Cannabis just filed and received recognition as a church in Indiana and they list Cannabis as their sacrament.  Sounds like week will now be protected as a religious practice in Indiana, unless they are April 1'ing everyone.

Sadly, no it won't. That's because the RFRA does not guarantee any religious exemptions - it only codifies the balancing test Indiana courts must follow in determining whether to grant a religious exemption. They would almost certainly lose the case, as has happened to other such suits.

Nice April-foolsin though.

[star seed 7]

This thing sounds like sharia law to me

[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.

"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)

I think you may be confusing real morals, which are based on God's law, with "personal whims." Jesus Saves, Rusty.

[star seed 7]

Great troll, I can't tell if you're serious or not

[gatoveintisiet]

DR this thread, it's like a modern day Peanuts cartoon with Dax Lucying the eff out of all the Charlie Browns.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

I LOVE this argument. The libtards were totally cool with RFRAs back when they were just about people doing drugs and Muslim inmates growing beards, but as soon as a Christian mom and pop wedding photographer refused to photograph a gay wedding The libtards are all SCREW RFRAS - ITS rough ridin' WAR!!!

A wonderful window into the libtard psyche.

[star seed 7]

It's a wonderful look into the psychopath psyche when someone doesn't understand the difference

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It's a wonderful look into the psychopath psyche when someone doesn't understand the difference

Oh I see a difference. There actually is a compelling government interest in prohibiting employee drug use, whereas allowing a few Christian photographers to follow their conscience harms nobody. There are plenty of other photographers around. Maybe even some atheist ones.

[ChiComCat]

Yes - a guy growing a beard is harming people but restaurants refusing to serve people harms nobody.

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

I'm sure the Defense of Marriage Act that Bill Clinton signed was about protecting Indians' right to get married, as well.

Gmafb

[star seed 7]

what about bill clinton 20 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Hey guys, have you seen the "straights only" drinking fountains, bus seats and schools? Because based upon some of the analogies made in this thread, that's what is going on.

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

Yes - a guy growing a beard is harming people but restaurants refusing to serve people harms nobody.

I think his point is neither harms anyone. Which is true.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Yes - a guy growing a beard is harming people but restaurants refusing to serve people harms nobody.

I'm fine with a Muslim inmate having a beard or an Indian school kid having long hair (both examples where the plaintiff rightly prevailed ). And nobody is talking about refusing to serve gays at a a restaurant. At most, a few restaurants might refuse to host a gay wedding reception. That doesn't seem to burdensome to respect devout religious beliefs.

[michigancat]

Yes - a guy growing a beard is harming people but restaurants refusing to serve people harms nobody.

I think his point is neither harms anyone. Which is true.

What about grocery stores refusing to serve someone? What if it's the only grocery store in town?

[SdK]

I, for one, will not be buying anything that says "Made In The Anna" anytime soon.

Hahahahahha

[SdK]

Why is calling someone Edna cool? Seems as stupid as beems calling dax daxi pad. Can't we move past namecalling? Can't we love one another?

[Headinjun]

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

I might soon be embarrassed to be a Grad Hog student 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Yes - a guy growing a beard is harming people but restaurants refusing to serve people harms nobody.

I think his point is neither harms anyone. Which is true.

What about grocery stores refusing to serve someone? What if it's the only grocery store in town?

The entire libtard butthurt over this is an increasingly far fetched series if what ifs. The law is only a legal framework for the courts. That's it.

[CNS]

Arky governor sent it back for changes.

[star seed 7]

more like the legal framework to sharia law

[michigancat]

Yes - a guy growing a beard is harming people but restaurants refusing to serve people harms nobody.

I think his point is neither harms anyone. Which is true.

What about grocery stores refusing to serve someone? What if it's the only grocery store in town?

The entire libtard butthurt over this is an increasingly far fetched series if what ifs. The law is only a legal framework for the courts. That's it.

The only reason the law was enacted in the present day is to protect bigots in far-fetched what-ifs. That's it.

[michigancat]

Not every town has multiple bakeries, dax. Some towns don't have any!