[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
Getting off track; Who gets the most government money for college, and who gets the biggest SAT score bonus? Is there some kind of connection? Some kind of SAT/University conspiracy to get more unqualified kids into school so more PELL Grants can be gathered up?
Higher education is changing into an industry set up to get tax dollars.
[/quote]
Dude. The argument you’re using right now is scarily reminiscent of how feminists and minority-rights people argue.
It’s just the exact opposite subject matter.[/quote]
I’m not sure dude has ever gotten on the track at this point. He’s all over the fucking place in this thread.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I assume your mostly in favor of the Indiana religious freedom act (at least in concept) then since its directly in response to preventing fallacious discrimination lawsuits exactly like the one I mentioned above.[/quote]
Just to clarify on this, in principle I do support the right of a private business to do as it so chooses in regards to customers it will and will not serve. In practicality, however, I see no reason to waste time and resources repealing existing civil rights laws that already exist, at the state or federal level, in regards to public accommodations and anti-discrimination laws.
In fact, so long as those laws are on the books, I see no reason not to add the LGBT community to the list of those protected. However, I do think there should be a legal recognition that a business owner has a free exercise of his or her own religious right(s) that supersedes state public accommodations laws whereby no one should be forced by the state to violate his or her duly held religious beliefs by being complicit in a same-sex wedding ceremony vis-a-vis the provision on a good or service from that person’s place of business specifically related to the same-sex ceremony. On this issue, I think the Supreme Court needs to step in and establish the legal supremacy of the First Amendment. Hobby Lobby already won their case under a similar argument tied to religious exercise, but that doesn’t appear to set a precedent in these types of cases. There is no valid reason among mainstream religions, that I can think of, to deny homosexuals service at most any privately owned business carte blanche (e.g., “gays not allowed” signage and so forth), but there are compelling reasons for some businesses, such as bakeries, florists, photographers, caterers, and wedding planners to not be forced into the provision of said goods or services for genuinely held religious beliefs.
I add vaccine-haters to the list of bad ideas gaining traction.[/quote]
Hah. Fair enough. Just as a point of history I don’t think Hitler ever managed more than something like 40% of any public vote and that was only early on before really pushing his heinous ideas. Hitler gained power by fear, violence, manipulation, luck, and timing.
religious freedoms are granted in our constitution, its only because Gays force their rights ,that these laws were created, its only because gays suing people for choosing their faith over fortune, that any of this ever came to par. Have gay friends and family that agree, everyones entitled to their belief, don’t like it , move to Russia.
I’m not sure dude has ever gotten on the track at this point. He’s all over the fucking place in this thread. [/quote]
It never ceases to amaze me when people use the same method of flawed arguments/talking points to argue against those they oppose.
The SJW folks do this a lot. A LOT.
Hell, this entire “let’s hate on religious people because they hate on gays” is pretty much the perfect example.
Let’s hate on a group of people because they hate on other group of people. Right. Makes perfect sense.[/quote]
Agreed. I was pretty taken aback by the whole “I’ll let anyone religious die in front of me because a couple religious people out of fucking hundred million plus were rude to gay people” thing.
Hate to see what he does to Muslims living in America, seeing as they fucking hang gay people in the ME.
That’s not the only state in the news today for doing just that. I’ve also seen mentioned other states already have similar laws in place as Indiana just passed but did not verify how accurate that is.
That’s not the only state in the news today for doing just that. I’ve also seen mentioned other states already have similar laws in place as Indiana just passed but did not verify how accurate that is.[/quote]
Posted it on the first page when I retorted to DIRK for his comment about letting a religious person die. There are 19, some of these RFRA laws are near 20 years old. There’s been a pretty good amount of time to see if some of these wacko claims are accurate.
Individual wording will vary from state to state of course.
I’m just trying to understand the points of view here, and closer to the situation here.
It seems like this Indiana law is just an hasty overreaction out of fear. Like a response to a situation that didn’t happen. No sweet old lady was put out of business by a monolithic gay/liberal conspiracy including media and the courts. Some reactionaries in Indiana just used this chance to get an old-fashioned law passed. An awesome opportunity to put “those people” back in their place.
An unintended consequence of this particular law is all the shit Indiana is taking right now. All to save one bakery, that didn’t even want to stay open. Over some supposed “stance” that the bakers expressed, only after they had already taken money from the gay customers.
And the Governor is super excited to be out front for this. Does this guy not watch the news?
[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
I’m just trying to understand the points of view here, and closer to the situation here.
It seems like this Indiana law is just an hasty overreaction out of fear. Like a response to a situation that didn’t happen. No sweet old lady was put out of business by a monolithic gay/liberal conspiracy including media and the courts. Some reactionaries in Indiana just used this chance to get an old-fashioned law passed. An awesome opportunity to put “those people” back in their place.
[/quote]
From the post above yours, or even Google:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Posted it on the first page when I retorted to DIRK for his comment about letting a religious person die. There are 19, some of these RFRA laws are near 20 years old. There’s been a pretty good amount of time to see if some of these wacko claims are accurate.
Individual wording will vary from state to state of course. [/quote]
That’s not the only state in the news today for doing just that. I’ve also seen mentioned other states already have similar laws in place as Indiana just passed but did not verify how accurate that is.[/quote]
That’s exactly what this article attempts to explain:
It seems to me that the TYPE of business that is forced to choose who to serve is being neglected here. I mean, a corner grocery store which sells things on a shelf really shouldn’t give a shit if a gay dude buys a can of tomato sauce or if a straight person buys a can of beans. Same thing with a gas station or an antique store (cuz we all know da fagz LUV antiquing). No one is NOT going to sell a gay person a piece of furniture… Even if the fag says, “man, the leg on that canopy bed frame would fit my ass PERFECTLY”, odds are, the sale will still go through.
No the issue is with what I would consider “art”. Cakes. Photography. Invitations to gay weddings. That sort of thing. In my opinion, when someone decorates a cake, that’s a kind of art. When a photographer takes a picture, they try to capture the essence of a beautiful moment. When a graphic designer creates an invitation, they try to invoke something beautiful. Can an artist be “compelled” to produce when something doesn’t move them? I think that’s what’s being missed here.
If I’m an artist and you come to me to commission a portrait, how on earth can the state FORCE me to serve EVERYONE that walks through the door? I mean, that’s just ridiculous…
What other kinds of businesses would really give a shit about homosexuals OTHER than christian businesses that cater to weddings. And does ANYONE really believe that the gay couple suing over the cake had ANY thing on their mind other than suing the shit out of a religious person because they cant stand the fact that they hold a different belief?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It seems to me that the TYPE of business that is forced to choose who to serve is being neglected here. I mean, a corner grocery store which sells things on a shelf really shouldn’t give a shit if a gay dude buys a can of tomato sauce or if a straight person buys a can of beans. Same thing with a gas station or an antique store (cuz we all know da fagz LUV antiquing). No one is NOT going to sell a gay person a piece of furniture… Even if the fag says, “man, the leg on that canopy bed frame would fit my ass PERFECTLY”, odds are, the sale will still go through.
No the issue is with what I would consider “art”. Cakes. Photography. Invitations to gay weddings. That sort of thing. In my opinion, when someone decorates a cake, that’s a kind of art. When a photographer takes a picture, they try to capture the essence of a beautiful moment. When a graphic designer creates an invitation, they try to invoke something beautiful. Can an artist be “compelled” to produce when something doesn’t move them? I think that’s what’s being missed here.
If I’m an artist and you come to me to commission a portrait, how on earth can the state FORCE me to serve EVERYONE that walks through the door? I mean, that’s just ridiculous…
What other kinds of businesses would really give a shit about homosexuals OTHER than christian businesses that cater to weddings. And does ANYONE really believe that the gay couple suing over the cake had ANY thing on their mind other than suing the shit out of a religious person because they cant stand the fact that they hold a different belief?[/quote]
This… In your previous examples, “Religious freedom” cannot be used to explain why the person would not be allowed to purchase something. They aren’t causing you to be an active participant in something you believe is immoral. As you said, providing a service for said event, is. And what happens if the state forces me to provide a service and you aren’t satisfied. Even if I try my best to put my feelings on the back burner and do what I consider a good job, aren’t you going to be skeptical. Not really sure how this works out for anyone.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It seems to me that the TYPE of business that is forced to choose who to serve is being neglected here. I mean, a corner grocery store which sells things on a shelf really shouldn’t give a shit if a gay dude buys a can of tomato sauce or if a straight person buys a can of beans. Same thing with a gas station or an antique store (cuz we all know da fagz LUV antiquing). No one is NOT going to sell a gay person a piece of furniture… Even if the fag says, “man, the leg on that canopy bed frame would fit my ass PERFECTLY”, odds are, the sale will still go through.
No the issue is with what I would consider “art”. Cakes. Photography. Invitations to gay weddings. That sort of thing. In my opinion, when someone decorates a cake, that’s a kind of art. When a photographer takes a picture, they try to capture the essence of a beautiful moment. When a graphic designer creates an invitation, they try to invoke something beautiful. Can an artist be “compelled” to produce when something doesn’t move them? I think that’s what’s being missed here.
If I’m an artist and you come to me to commission a portrait, how on earth can the state FORCE me to serve EVERYONE that walks through the door? I mean, that’s just ridiculous…
What other kinds of businesses would really give a shit about homosexuals OTHER than christian businesses that cater to weddings. And does ANYONE really believe that the gay couple suing over the cake had ANY thing on their mind other than suing the shit out of a religious person because they cant stand the fact that they hold a different belief?[/quote]
What you said above could have worked too. The big mistake the right made on this one is putting it in the name of religion. This whole thing is just a religion vs anti-religion fight and instead of fixing the underlying problem both sides just want to win.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What you said above could have worked too. The big mistake the right made on this one is putting it in the name of religion. This whole thing is just a religion vs anti-religion fight and instead of fixing the underlying problem both sides just want to win.[/quote]
Speaking purely politically and leaving the debate of right or wrong out of it:
You think the right had another play? As in you think it would have gone over better if they said we think individuals have a right to deny service to anyone? Because I disagree. Framing this (even though imo they shouldn’t have had to) as a freedom of religion thing is probably the only chance for the general public to accept it.