Religious Liberties Laws

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]AliveAgain36 wrote:
http://www.abc57.com/story/28681598/rfra-first-business-to-publicly-deny-same-sex-service[/quote]

And… the award for most inaccurate and sensationalist headline of the week goes to…

Wow. Just wow.

“We’ll serve anyone that comes in, we just dont’ want to cater a same sex wedding.”

You know, we should force Muslims to drink and sever booze, and Jews to eat and serve cheesburgers and bacon. That’s the ticket![/quote]

Here’s the secret. Nobody actually believes there’s going to be an outbreak of “heterosexuals only.” At most, even in the most wide open interpretation of the bill, you’d have to go out of your way to find a pizza place not serving gays. Nobody believes this. Why? Because it wasn’t happening already!

This is literally about smacking down the religious where their most sacred beliefs do happen to intersect with their economic life. A very small and specific set of circumstances in most cases. Such as weddings. The sentiment expressed by the pizza place owners is exactly what you would get, by far and wide. Not the generalized segregation bull-dung scenarios being imagined up. But again, I don’t think they believe their own scenarios.

I think it’s exactly about the fact that Christians will continue to disapprove of gay marriage, despite what happens with the legality of it. And that’s bad! And so we apparently want paternalistic government to swat them down. "Daddy, Timmy doesn’t want to play with me!’ Because it makes us mad that some otherwise perfectly nice and accommodating owners of a pizzeria, amongst a variety of pizzerias, won’t cater a gay wedding…

And let’s not get started on the uncooperative Catholics and their opposition to mandates of the Healthcare act!

162

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
They should just go straight to the point and make a law saying you can refuse service to gay weddings (without any specific reason, religious, etc). The anti-discriminatory laws are for protecting something that’s outside a persons control like gender/color. I don’t think religion should be included in these federal protected classes though, that is the only one that stands out.[/quote]

Is it impossible to change one’s sex and color?

163

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
They should just go straight to the point and make a law saying you can refuse service to gay weddings (without any specific reason, religious, etc). The anti-discriminatory laws are for protecting something that’s outside a persons control like gender/color. I don’t think religion should be included in these federal protected classes though, that is the only one that stands out.[/quote]

As I stated before, the Supreme Court just needs to take one of these cases and settle the matter, but they rejected granting certiorari recently on a case that was decided in New Mexico against the business owner.

Free exercise of religion is a core tenet of the First Amendment, and it should supersede state mandated anti-discrimination laws enforced against private enterprise engaged in venues of public commercial business transactions. However, the High Court took the Hobby Lobby case and sided with the business owners, which while it involved a different set of circumstance regarding the free exercise of religion, ultimately goes back to a fundamental legal dilemma on government coercion via legislative fiat versus individual liberty rooted in a religious belief(s).

Ref: HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost

164

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
They should just go straight to the point and make a law saying you can refuse service to gay weddings (without any specific reason, religious, etc). The anti-discriminatory laws are for protecting something that’s outside a persons control like gender/color. I don’t think religion should be included in these federal protected classes though, that is the only one that stands out.[/quote]

Is it impossible to change one’s sex and color?[/quote]

I don’t know the details on that. Its not on the same lines as choosing to get married though. The ability to get private services should not be dependent on going through a series of medical procedures to appease racist people.

165

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I think it’s exactly about the fact that Christians will continue to disapprove of gay marriage, despite what happens with the legality of it. And that’s bad! And so we apparently want paternalistic government to swat them down. "Daddy, Timmy doesn’t want to play with me!’ Because it makes us mad that some otherwise perfectly nice and accommodating owners of a pizzeria, amongst a variety of pizzerias, won’t cater a gay wedding…
[/quote]

Weren’t the Republicans doing the exact same thing when they attempted to pass an amendment, an amendment of all things, banning gay marriage in the 2000s?

166

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I think it’s exactly about the fact that Christians will continue to disapprove of gay marriage, despite what happens with the legality of it. And that’s bad! And so we apparently want paternalistic government to swat them down. "Daddy, Timmy doesn’t want to play with me!’ Because it makes us mad that some otherwise perfectly nice and accommodating owners of a pizzeria, amongst a variety of pizzerias, won’t cater a gay wedding…
[/quote]

Weren’t the Republicans doing the exact same thing when they attempted to pass an amendment, an amendment of all things, banning gay marriage in the 2000s?[/quote]

You’d have to search my past posts on gay marriage specifically. I only speak of it here at all because of it is unavoidable.

167

Couldn’t any business owner to simply put up a sign reading “We reserve the right to refuse to make any cake/pizza/flowers at any time.”

You could literally say “My Religious views would prevent me from being truly inspired for this project. As a result, I must decline.”

You just can’t add the words “because” and “gay” in any format. Say you have principles, just refrain from the sermon.

-Democracy during that French dude’s time was chopping off rich people’s heads. Of course he feared the “dark side” of democracy.

-Gov Pence knew he was taking on the “mono-culture” when he signed that bill like he was Herbie Hancock. He was almost defiant! The mob took down Socrates! What did he think was going to happen? He actually hurt his “cause.” That’s the real issue here. Indiana had things the way they wanted. Then they decided to push it, and they’ve endangered the “Rights” they were trying to “protect!” They cut off their nose, despite their face!

-Gov Hutchinson actually showed some restraint, and that he understands that politics are really just based on relationships, timing and popularity. Court the mob, don’t fight it! Smile! Build compromise, not enemies.

168

JR, thanks for finding all these facts. That Arizona governor term-limit thing was pretty crucial.

I’m going to sound way more informed in public.

169

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
They should just go straight to the point and make a law saying you can refuse service to gay weddings (without any specific reason, religious, etc). The anti-discriminatory laws are for protecting something that’s outside a persons control like gender/color. I don’t think religion should be included in these federal protected classes though, that is the only one that stands out.[/quote]

Is it impossible to change one’s sex and color?[/quote]

I don’t know the details on that. Its not on the same lines as choosing to get married though. The ability to get private services should not be dependent on going through a series of medical procedures to appease racist people.[/quote]

You are correct. The “ability to get private services” should be dependent on the voluntary exchange of goods. However, it seemed that you were arguing that because religion can be changed it should not receive the same protections as sex and color. If sex and skin color can be changed, then your argument is baseless, right?

I don’t care where you stand on the issue, you have to love the idea that the entity which didn’t allow blacks access, which didn’t allow women access, and which didn’t recognize the right of gays to enter into certain contracts with each other can turn around and redeem itself by taking control(stealing) of property that doesn’t belong to it.

How ridiculously stupid is our species?

170

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
JR, thanks for finding all these facts. That Arizona governor term-limit thing was pretty crucial.

I’m going to sound way more informed in public.[/quote]

I just knew you’d be elated.

171

I like your style. You should join Beans and me at 4:20.

172

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
I like your style. You should join Beans and me at 4:20. [/quote]

lol, you’re growing on me. That’s for sure.

173

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
I like your style. You should join Beans and me at 4:20. [/quote]

I have a story about that, “one time in Denver, February 2014,” but that’s for another thread…

174

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
They should just go straight to the point and make a law saying you can refuse service to gay weddings (without any specific reason, religious, etc). The anti-discriminatory laws are for protecting something that’s outside a persons control like gender/color. I don’t think religion should be included in these federal protected classes though, that is the only one that stands out.[/quote]

Mind bogglingly myopic. So because one can convert, protection is rendered moot? Despite the fact that, for many believers, this is tantamount to abandoning a fundamental part of their person-hood?

To Hell or Connaught with ye, I say!

175

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

They’re just exercising their first amendment rights. It isn’t like they are blocking highways to protest a dude who got shot for punching a cop in the face. [/quote]

Yea, I’m sure you know that people like to bash people whenever they voice an argument that they disagree with. I’m surprised Republican nominee hopefuls aren’t trying to take advantage of this.[/quote]

Why bother? From a purely logical standpoint, the only way that the other side could legitimately argue their point is to first somehow establish that civic rights are superior to natural rights. This is logically impossible, so to argue with those who fail to see otherwise is a futile attempt at best.

Natural rights are, of course, the right to life, liberty, and estate/property. The right to property is essentially a negative right, in that one is compelled to refrain from exercising against it their own rights. The natural right to property must necessarily include the right to dispose of such property howsoever one sees fit, as long the exercise thereof does not encroach upon another’s natural right. This, in turn would include the right to decide to whom you enter into voluntary exchanges to part with said property.

The right to be free of discrimination is essentially a civic right, in that it is created by the gov’t and can only exist with a gov’t in place. I like to think of civic rights as ACCESS rights, rights which guarantee equal access to a gov’t-provided service of some sort. A private business and private property do not fall within this definition.

Beyond that, gov’t exists to protect natural rights, so the entity that exists to protect natural rights cannot then create laws that permit the selected violation of natural rights in some other pursuit, however seemingly noble it may be. It goes without saying that civic rights are essentially the arm that must stop swinging around once it reaches the tip of my nose.

And quite frankly, I fail to see any other way to achieving any semblance of the social equality that opponents of the law continually clamor for then to protect what we are all equally born with and what “equalizes” us: natural rights.

Maybe I’m just being narcissistic (a distinct possibility), but I have a hard time believing that there’s any point in arguing with someone who would be in disagreement with the law after the above argument is presented to them.[/quote]

Great post.

176

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Who the fuck wants pizza at their wedding anyway?

This has gone past relevant and dived straight into absurd. [/quote]

No shit. We gave the people what they wanted at our wedding, really, really good steaks and an open bar. It was a huge success, I was plenty full and drunk.

177

960×960 193 KB

Thought this was funny.

178

And again, nobody believes the segregation or starving stories. Not really.

“Neither the Indiana nor Arkansas law specifically mentions gays and lesbians, but opponents are concerned that the language contained in them could offer a legal defense to businesses and other institutions that refuse to serve gays, such as caterers, florists or photographers with religious objections to same-sex marriage”

Notice, all positions which might be called on to service a wedding. As, I said, a narrow a specific set of circumstances. So, basically, “you’ll service what is sacrilegious to you or gtfo!”
http://news.yahoo.com/arkansas-indiana-lawmakers-race-religion-bills-064225619.html

One of the most basic and fundamental principles held at our founding is no more.

Even Varq’s image tells us something. Look at the last bit about targeting LGBT. Actually, that’s not the case. No group is mentioned at all. No specific issues. It is just as easily a defense against contraception-insurance mandates, or anything else to come down the pipe. It simply restates what had long been an American principle.

179

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Thought this was funny.[/quote]

A low information picture from you, I just died a little inside… :frowning:

180

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Thought this was funny.[/quote]

A low information picture from you, I just died a little inside… :([/quote]

Apologies.

I will redeem myself. Count on it.