The problem for small businesses in Indiana is that everyone is going to be punished, whether they agree with the new law or not. Investors are moving their money elsewhere.
The people of Indiana seemingly elected those fools that did this. You could say that not everyone in the state voted for them. But, that's how it is in a democracy. Everybody in the state, right, left, suffer the consequence of what the government in place decides. This is no different. The consequences are perfectly predictable too, so I'd argue that the government is perfectly comfortable with them. The local governments should provide local relief to their affected citizens if they think their decisions are sooo morally right.
Anyway, the boycotts here won't be eternal; courts will intervene to strike down the Indiana law. This is basically companies that have business in the state passing a message. While a public commerce cannot not serve everyone, you can't forces people to buy at that commerce, or invest in a state (boycotts); this is perfectly constitutional. You can't force people to spend money were they don't want to spend it. Many (gay/black/whatever minority is disliked in that moment) commerce have closed down for that very reason and there is not much that can be done about that.
Companies have a point of view because their employees and most of their clients have a point of view; that's been the case since the emergence of public relations a hundred years ago.
Many clients actually buy from a company because they have a point of view they can support. The affluent bi-coastal employees of tech companies and their similar core clients are very progressive as a group; this is part of their DNA. They were often more progressive than the US as a whole for a long time. Though, this is no longer the case, the US and the world has caught up with them.
OK - so what stopped it from being a free market? And in the civil war through the 1960s period, how did it differ and become a free market? Both those periods were characterized by significant racial discrimination. And if the latter period was a free market, when segregation was widespread, how do you still maintain the argument that a free market will naturally prevent discrimination. I fail to see how you are furthering your argument in the slightest - in fact you seem to be making the counter-argument - that discrimination has only ever been tackled successfully by legislative methods.
How many times do I have to explain the same thing?
Free market means that goods, services, capital and labour can move FREELY. The government doesn't restrict those movements except when the rights of someone or a group is being attacked by someone else, to police fraud and theft, and to arbitrate disputes.
No country has ever had an entirely free market but after the civil war the US was FREER after the civil war because blacks - a huge component of the labour force - had some freedom of movement and government regulation was minimal. There was no income tax until 1913 and the federal government functioned just fine.
The Great Depression was made worse and lasted longer than it needed to by Roosevelt's policies, in my opinion. but even then the federal government was tiny compared with today.
The device you're typing to me on was created by a capitalist market. If the government didn't try to double tax Apple on overseas profit, or reduced the rate, Tim Cook has said Apple would be investing more money in the states. It's a stupid tax policy and an example of government regulating away jobs and domestic investment. Capital is not "free" to be repatriated, which hurts the economy.
If you're a person who thinks the government needs to punish the people and companies who are creating all the jobs, increasing taxes and arbitrarily redistributing the wealth as a bribe for votes, then you'll never understand the concept called Free Market Economy. You think that the labour component being subjected to slavery is a "free market" which is just bizarre.
The problem is not your explanation - it is that you now seem to be addressing a different question. I'm not arguing about the pros and cons of a free market per se, that's a quite separate discussion. My original comment was in response to numerous posts, here and elsewhere, asserting that the simple pressures of a free market will prevent discrimination, even if the law allows it, i.e. gays, blacks, or whoever, will either take their business elsewhere or actually move to a different state. Setting aside whether expecting mass migration is a reasonable remedy to discrimination in a civilized country, my point was that, historically, simple economic pressures did not result in an end to discrimination - it required legislation, such as the civil rights laws.
Your initial response, which I don't disagree with, was that economic pressures and the social mood played a part in bringing about legislative changes, but that does not change the observation that it still took legislation to stop those widespread behaviors. A law that effectively condones discrimination, especially one that does so only if it is on religious grounds, is not going to help.
Has anyone here actually posted the entirety of this Indiana law? I'm beginning to wonder if it's as bad as reported.
SECTION 1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:
Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration
Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.
Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.
Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.
Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.
Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.
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.
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.
Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.
Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.
Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.
The problem is not your explanation - it is that you now seem to be addressing a different question. I'm not arguing about the pros and cons of a free market per se, that's a quite separate discussion. My original comment was in response to numerous posts, here and elsewhere, asserting that the simple pressures of a free market will prevent discrimination, even if the law allows it, i.e. gays, blacks, or whoever, will either take their business elsewhere or actually move to a different state. Setting aside whether expecting mass migration is a reasonable remedy to discrimination in a civilized country, my point was that, historically, simple economic pressures did not result in an end to discrimination - it required legislation, such as the civil rights laws.
Your initial response, which I don't disagree with, was that economic pressures and the social mood played a part in bringing about legislative changes, but that does not change the observation that it still took legislation to stop those widespread behaviors. A law that effectively condones discrimination, especially one that does so only if it is on religious grounds, is not going to help.
"...a free market will prevent discrimination"?
Of course it won't, just as our currently highly regulated markets cannot "prevent" discrimination.The discrimination of an individual just becomes sublimated and less detectable. If a person is bigoted or prejudiced, no law will change their beliefs.
The problem is not your explanation - it is that you now seem to be addressing a different question. I'm not arguing about the pros and cons of a free market per se, that's a quite separate discussion. My original comment was in response to numerous posts, here and elsewhere, asserting that the simple pressures of a free market will prevent discrimination, even if the law allows it, i.e. gays, blacks, or whoever, will either take their business elsewhere or actually move to a different state. Setting aside whether expecting mass migration is a reasonable remedy to discrimination in a civilized country, my point was that, historically, simple economic pressures did not result in an end to discrimination - it required legislation, such as the civil rights laws.
Your initial response, which I don't disagree with, was that economic pressures and the social mood played a part in bringing about legislative changes, but that does not change the observation that it still took legislation to stop those widespread behaviors. A law that effectively condones discrimination, especially one that does so only if it is on religious grounds, is not going to help.
"...a free market will prevent discrimination"?
Of course it won't, just as our currently highly regulated markets cannot "prevent" discrimination. If a person is bigoted or prejudiced, no law will change their beliefs.
Agreed. But legislation to promote equal rights and prevent discrimination is not intended to change anyone's beliefs, but rather to modify belief-based, discriminatory behavior.
The problem is not your explanation - it is that you now seem to be addressing a different question. I'm not arguing about the pros and cons of a free market per se, that's a quite separate discussion. My original comment was in response to numerous posts, here and elsewhere, asserting that the simple pressures of a free market will prevent discrimination, even if the law allows it, i.e. gays, blacks, or whoever, will either take their business elsewhere or actually move to a different state. Setting aside whether expecting mass migration is a reasonable remedy to discrimination in a civilized country, my point was that, historically, simple economic pressures did not result in an end to discrimination - it required legislation, such as the civil rights laws.
Your initial response, which I don't disagree with, was that economic pressures and the social mood played a part in bringing about legislative changes, but that does not change the observation that it still took legislation to stop those widespread behaviors. A law that effectively condones discrimination, especially one that does so only if it is on religious grounds, is not going to help.
I don't think we're too far off. There's a subtle but important difference in my view of Socionomics that I'll try to explain concisely.
1. The social mood shifts
2. This is reflected in economic indicators. There was a depression just prior to the civil war
3. Violence, or boycotts/protests break out
4. The government REACTS with legislation.
You could argue that the Declaration of Independence triggered the Revolutionary War and the Emancipation Proclamation triggered the civil war, but that's not really true. Bitter disputes and violence were already underway in both cases, And it was the Constitution itself and then the 13th Amendment that were the real significant pieces of law. Likewise, Civil Rights act of 1964 FOLLOWED the mass protests and boycotts.
In other words, based on the prevalent Social Mood the crowd ACTS, and then the government REACTS.
I think that faith is a crutch, a way for people to avoid thinking about the fact that existence is ultimately futile and pointless, that everything, including the Universe itself (well, matter, anyways) will someday no longer exist. People accept faith in order to not have to deal with those sorts of revelations. So, while I don't feel a lack of respect for those who are religious, and I don't treat them any differently than anyone else, it is true that I have no respect for religion itself. Then again, I have no respect for any belief in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. For instance, I don't have respect for the belief in ghosts, or in Bigfoot, or whatever.
As to freedom of worship, I believe that it's very important to maintain. OTOH, what I truly wish is that mankind would evolve past the point where they believe in (what I believe to be) silly mythology.
However, I don't for one second have respect for anyone who discriminates against those of different races, genders, those who have different sexual orientation, or those of different faiths. IOW, I do not respect bigots, and I don't know why anyone would. Believe me, I completely understand why people are bigots, but why supposed non-bigots would have even a modicum of respect for them is completely incomprehensible.
Do I want to burn anyone at the stake? Of course not. Not literally nor figuratively. But I don't think that speaking up against racism or sexism or anti-Semitism or homophobia is "burning anyone at the stake."
There are three great conversations going on at all times. All three of these conversations are attempts to arrive at truth. All three are dependent on circular arguments -- you cannot be certain that any one of these conversations is any more valid than the other, any more than you can be certain that the entire universe is only five minutes old and your memories are not real.
The first is that between Man and Nature. We call this conversation 'science.' Science is an excellent model, but do not for a minute think it is not subjective, open to political or financial manipulation, or influenced by the other two conversations.
The second is that between Man and God. We call this religion. Like science, the theologian is continually learning. Like science, he never quite arrives at the truth. But that does not mean he is entirely wrong, either.
The third conversation is between Man and Man. We call this philosophy. It is the argument of opinions. It is an opinion that homosexuality is bad. It is also an opinion that homosexuality is good. People who hold these opinions may pretend to call upon science or religion as support, but they remain opinions.
You say you do not want to burn heretics at the stake. But you would not mind seeing them unable to work or own a business, eh? Because you hate bigots so much. Your post drips with irony.
I'm not so sure why people need to read a fictional book that you recommend , I dont ask you to read Star Wars and try to make laws related to it that that affect everybody.
In fact, you do exactly that. You want legislation to support your opinion and you want others' opinions to be suppressed. What makes your opinion more valid than the opinion of others?
To "muppetry": Thanks for finding and posting the text of that law.
Honestly, it looks like pandering to religious interests and appears to be plainly in violation of the Establishment Clause, even as it insists in legalese that it isn't.
The problem is not your explanation - it is that you now seem to be addressing a different question. I'm not arguing about the pros and cons of a free market per se, that's a quite separate discussion. My original comment was in response to numerous posts, here and elsewhere, asserting that the simple pressures of a free market will prevent discrimination, even if the law allows it, i.e. gays, blacks, or whoever, will either take their business elsewhere or actually move to a different state. Setting aside whether expecting mass migration is a reasonable remedy to discrimination in a civilized country, my point was that, historically, simple economic pressures did not result in an end to discrimination - it required legislation, such as the civil rights laws.
Your initial response, which I don't disagree with, was that economic pressures and the social mood played a part in bringing about legislative changes, but that does not change the observation that it still took legislation to stop those widespread behaviors. A law that effectively condones discrimination, especially one that does so only if it is on religious grounds, is not going to help.
I don't think we're too far off. There's a subtle but important difference in my view of Socionomics that I'll try to explain concisely.
1. The social mood shifts
2. This is reflected in economic indicators. There was a depression just prior to the civil war
3. Violence, or boycotts/protests break out
4. The government REACTS with legislation.
You could argue that the Declaration of Independence triggered the Revolutionary War and the Emancipation Proclamation triggered the civil war, but that's not really true. Bitter disputes and violence were already underway in both cases, And it was the Constitution itself and then the 13th Amendment that were the real significant pieces of law. Likewise, Civil Rights act of 1964 FOLLOWED the mass protests and boycotts.
In other words, based on the prevalent Social Mood the crowd ACTS, and then the government REACTS.
That's a fine summary - I would not argue with any of it.
To "muppetry": Thanks for finding and posting the text of that law.
Honestly, it looks like pandering to religious interests and appears to be plainly in violation of the Establishment Clause, even as it insists in legalese that it isn't.
In fact, the Establishment Clause prohibits laws that curtail the free exercise of religion. It also prohibits restrictions of freedom of speech or association. Non-discrimination laws violate all three provisions of the Establishment clause.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What you are demanding sure sounds a lot like "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The law does not prohibit anyone from doing business with anyone, so it is not imposing a religious belief or practice on anyone. It merely restates what the Constitution says.
To "muppetry": Thanks for finding and posting the text of that law.
Honestly, it looks like pandering to religious interests and appears to be plainly in violation of the Establishment Clause, even as it insists in legalese that it isn't.
That's an interesting question. Doesn't the Establishment Clause simply outlaw legislation that favors one religion over another? This particular bill doesn't appear to do that, at least as far as I can see, and so I'm not clear how it does violate that. What are you seeing that would be in violation?
In fact, the Establishment Clause prohibits laws that curtail the free exercise of religion. It also prohibits restrictions of freedom of speech or association. Non-discrimination laws violate all three provisions of the Establishment clause.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What you are demanding sure sounds a lot like "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The law does not prohibit anyone from doing business with anyone, so it is not imposing a religious belief or practice on anyone. It merely restates what the Constitution says.
What do you think I'm "demanding"?
There was no need to pass this law in the first place. It's legislative hogwash addressing a non-existent problem and asserts the religious interests of that state via government control. That's a big no-no. This confused law need not reword and attempt to end-run what the Constitution already clearly lays out.
In fact, the Establishment Clause prohibits laws that curtail the free exercise of religion. It also prohibits restrictions of freedom of speech or association. Non-discrimination laws violate all three provisions of the Establishment clause.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What you are demanding sure sounds a lot like "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The law does not prohibit anyone from doing business with anyone, so it is not imposing a religious belief or practice on anyone. It merely restates what the Constitution says.
What do you think I'm "demanding"?
There was no need to pass this law in the first place. It's legislative hogwash addressing a non-existent problem and asserts the religious interests of that state via government control. That's a big no-no.
It seems to me that the main motivation was to provide more explicit protection to business entities that might face legal challenges to their refusal to do business with individuals based on their religious beliefs - specifically, in this case, in relation to same-sex marriage and related issues. The recent civil cases brought against photographers and bakers, together with the growing momentum to legalize same-sex marriage were probably the triggers.
I actually have no problem with the concept that one should not be required to do anything that violates ones belief system, so I have some sympathy for the photographer who does not want to attend and photograph a ceremony and behaviors that he feels are wrong or abhorrent to him. In contrast, the baker bakes cakes. A cake is a cake, and he is not being asked to participate in, or even observe, anything at all and so, in that case, discrimination is unreasonable.
In fact, you do exactly that. You want legislation to support your opinion and you want others' opinions to be suppressed. What makes your opinion more valid than the opinion of others?
I do? I don't want any laws in this case. The constitution is fine for me. All men are created equal.
Absolutely not! If you want to be homophobic bigot you have that right, but I also have the right to use sarcasm to express my disdain for such people.
I found this part of the Indiana law particularly offensive: "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..."
A person is not a church, nor are they a business.
IMO, that churches and religious organizations are given tax-free status by the IRS I believe long ago plainly violated the Establishment Clause, as did the addition of "In God We Trust" to US currency.
I think that faith is a crutch, a way for people to avoid thinking about the fact that existence is ultimately futile and pointless, that everything, including the Universe itself (well, matter, anyways) will someday no longer exist. People accept faith in order to not have to deal with those sorts of revelations. So, while I don't feel a lack of respect for those who are religious, and I don't treat them any differently than anyone else, it is true that I have no respect for religion itself. Then again, I have no respect for any belief in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. For instance, I don't have respect for the belief in ghosts, or in Bigfoot, or whatever.
As to freedom of worship, I believe that it's very important to maintain. OTOH, what I truly wish is that mankind would evolve past the point where they believe in (what I believe to be) silly mythology.
However, I don't for one second have respect for anyone who discriminates against those of different races, genders, those who have different sexual orientation, or those of different faiths. IOW, I do not respect bigots, and I don't know why anyone would. Believe me, I completely understand why people are bigots, but why supposed non-bigots would have even a modicum of respect for them is completely incomprehensible.
Do I want to burn anyone at the stake? Of course not. Not literally nor figuratively. But I don't think that speaking up against racism or sexism or anti-Semitism or homophobia is "burning anyone at the stake."
There are three great conversations going on at all times. All three of these conversations are attempts to arrive at truth. All three are dependent on circular arguments -- you cannot be certain that any one of these conversations is any more valid than the other, any more than you can be certain that the entire universe is only five minutes old and your memories are not real.
The first is that between Man and Nature. We call this conversation 'science.' Science is an excellent model, but do not for a minute think it is not subjective, open to political or financial manipulation, or influenced by the other two conversations.
The second is that between Man and God. We call this religion. Like science, the theologian is continually learning. Like science, he never quite arrives at the truth. But that does not mean he is entirely wrong, either.
The third conversation is between Man and Man. We call this philosophy. It is the argument of opinions. It is an opinion that homosexuality is bad. It is also an opinion that homosexuality is good. People who hold these opinions may pretend to call upon science or religion as support, but they remain opinions.
You say you do not want to burn heretics at the stake. But you would not mind seeing them unable to work or own a business, eh? Because you hate bigots so much. Your post drips with irony.
Would you mind just explaining and justifying what you mean when you claim that science is subjective?
There was no need to pass this law in the first place. It's legislative hogwash addressing a non-existent problem and asserts the religious interests of that state via government control. That's a big no-no. This confused law need not reword and attempt to end-run what the Constitution already clearly lays out.
Exactly. On top of that, there are so few cases of actual harm that this law would prevent vs MANY cases where this law will cause harm. The photographer who does not want to do a job is the edge case, it can happen, but most SMART business people know how to avoid problems like this. On the other hand with this law there will be far more issues of harm, gays being kicked out of restaurants, taxi's or even being told not to shop in certain stores.
When a law causes more problems than it fixes there is a problem.
Comments
The problem for small businesses in Indiana is that everyone is going to be punished, whether they agree with the new law or not. Investors are moving their money elsewhere.
The people of Indiana seemingly elected those fools that did this. You could say that not everyone in the state voted for them. But, that's how it is in a democracy. Everybody in the state, right, left, suffer the consequence of what the government in place decides. This is no different. The consequences are perfectly predictable too, so I'd argue that the government is perfectly comfortable with them. The local governments should provide local relief to their affected citizens if they think their decisions are sooo morally right.
Anyway, the boycotts here won't be eternal; courts will intervene to strike down the Indiana law. This is basically companies that have business in the state passing a message. While a public commerce cannot not serve everyone, you can't forces people to buy at that commerce, or invest in a state (boycotts); this is perfectly constitutional. You can't force people to spend money were they don't want to spend it. Many (gay/black/whatever minority is disliked in that moment) commerce have closed down for that very reason and there is not much that can be done about that.
Companies have a point of view because their employees and most of their clients have a point of view; that's been the case since the emergence of public relations a hundred years ago.
Many clients actually buy from a company because they have a point of view they can support. The affluent bi-coastal employees of tech companies and their similar core clients are very progressive as a group; this is part of their DNA. They were often more progressive than the US as a whole for a long time. Though, this is no longer the case, the US and the world has caught up with them.
OK - so what stopped it from being a free market? And in the civil war through the 1960s period, how did it differ and become a free market? Both those periods were characterized by significant racial discrimination. And if the latter period was a free market, when segregation was widespread, how do you still maintain the argument that a free market will naturally prevent discrimination. I fail to see how you are furthering your argument in the slightest - in fact you seem to be making the counter-argument - that discrimination has only ever been tackled successfully by legislative methods.
How many times do I have to explain the same thing?
Free market means that goods, services, capital and labour can move FREELY. The government doesn't restrict those movements except when the rights of someone or a group is being attacked by someone else, to police fraud and theft, and to arbitrate disputes.
No country has ever had an entirely free market but after the civil war the US was FREER after the civil war because blacks - a huge component of the labour force - had some freedom of movement and government regulation was minimal. There was no income tax until 1913 and the federal government functioned just fine.
The Great Depression was made worse and lasted longer than it needed to by Roosevelt's policies, in my opinion. but even then the federal government was tiny compared with today.
The device you're typing to me on was created by a capitalist market. If the government didn't try to double tax Apple on overseas profit, or reduced the rate, Tim Cook has said Apple would be investing more money in the states. It's a stupid tax policy and an example of government regulating away jobs and domestic investment. Capital is not "free" to be repatriated, which hurts the economy.
If you're a person who thinks the government needs to punish the people and companies who are creating all the jobs, increasing taxes and arbitrarily redistributing the wealth as a bribe for votes, then you'll never understand the concept called Free Market Economy. You think that the labour component being subjected to slavery is a "free market" which is just bizarre.
The problem is not your explanation - it is that you now seem to be addressing a different question. I'm not arguing about the pros and cons of a free market per se, that's a quite separate discussion. My original comment was in response to numerous posts, here and elsewhere, asserting that the simple pressures of a free market will prevent discrimination, even if the law allows it, i.e. gays, blacks, or whoever, will either take their business elsewhere or actually move to a different state. Setting aside whether expecting mass migration is a reasonable remedy to discrimination in a civilized country, my point was that, historically, simple economic pressures did not result in an end to discrimination - it required legislation, such as the civil rights laws.
Your initial response, which I don't disagree with, was that economic pressures and the social mood played a part in bringing about legislative changes, but that does not change the observation that it still took legislation to stop those widespread behaviors. A law that effectively condones discrimination, especially one that does so only if it is on religious grounds, is not going to help.
Has anyone here actually posted the entirety of this Indiana law? I'm beginning to wonder if it's as bad as reported.
SECTION 1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:
Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration
Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.
Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.
Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.
Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.
Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.
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.
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.
Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.
Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.
Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.
"...a free market will prevent discrimination"?
Of course it won't, just as our currently highly regulated markets cannot "prevent" discrimination.The discrimination of an individual just becomes sublimated and less detectable. If a person is bigoted or prejudiced, no law will change their beliefs.
The problem is not your explanation - it is that you now seem to be addressing a different question. I'm not arguing about the pros and cons of a free market per se, that's a quite separate discussion. My original comment was in response to numerous posts, here and elsewhere, asserting that the simple pressures of a free market will prevent discrimination, even if the law allows it, i.e. gays, blacks, or whoever, will either take their business elsewhere or actually move to a different state. Setting aside whether expecting mass migration is a reasonable remedy to discrimination in a civilized country, my point was that, historically, simple economic pressures did not result in an end to discrimination - it required legislation, such as the civil rights laws.
Your initial response, which I don't disagree with, was that economic pressures and the social mood played a part in bringing about legislative changes, but that does not change the observation that it still took legislation to stop those widespread behaviors. A law that effectively condones discrimination, especially one that does so only if it is on religious grounds, is not going to help.
"...a free market will prevent discrimination"?
Of course it won't, just as our currently highly regulated markets cannot "prevent" discrimination. If a person is bigoted or prejudiced, no law will change their beliefs.
Agreed. But legislation to promote equal rights and prevent discrimination is not intended to change anyone's beliefs, but rather to modify belief-based, discriminatory behavior.
I don't think we're too far off. There's a subtle but important difference in my view of Socionomics that I'll try to explain concisely.
1. The social mood shifts
2. This is reflected in economic indicators. There was a depression just prior to the civil war
3. Violence, or boycotts/protests break out
4. The government REACTS with legislation.
You could argue that the Declaration of Independence triggered the Revolutionary War and the Emancipation Proclamation triggered the civil war, but that's not really true. Bitter disputes and violence were already underway in both cases, And it was the Constitution itself and then the 13th Amendment that were the real significant pieces of law. Likewise, Civil Rights act of 1964 FOLLOWED the mass protests and boycotts.
In other words, based on the prevalent Social Mood the crowd ACTS, and then the government REACTS.
I think that faith is a crutch, a way for people to avoid thinking about the fact that existence is ultimately futile and pointless, that everything, including the Universe itself (well, matter, anyways) will someday no longer exist. People accept faith in order to not have to deal with those sorts of revelations. So, while I don't feel a lack of respect for those who are religious, and I don't treat them any differently than anyone else, it is true that I have no respect for religion itself. Then again, I have no respect for any belief in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. For instance, I don't have respect for the belief in ghosts, or in Bigfoot, or whatever.
As to freedom of worship, I believe that it's very important to maintain. OTOH, what I truly wish is that mankind would evolve past the point where they believe in (what I believe to be) silly mythology.
However, I don't for one second have respect for anyone who discriminates against those of different races, genders, those who have different sexual orientation, or those of different faiths. IOW, I do not respect bigots, and I don't know why anyone would. Believe me, I completely understand why people are bigots, but why supposed non-bigots would have even a modicum of respect for them is completely incomprehensible.
Do I want to burn anyone at the stake? Of course not. Not literally nor figuratively. But I don't think that speaking up against racism or sexism or anti-Semitism or homophobia is "burning anyone at the stake."
There are three great conversations going on at all times. All three of these conversations are attempts to arrive at truth. All three are dependent on circular arguments -- you cannot be certain that any one of these conversations is any more valid than the other, any more than you can be certain that the entire universe is only five minutes old and your memories are not real.
The first is that between Man and Nature. We call this conversation 'science.' Science is an excellent model, but do not for a minute think it is not subjective, open to political or financial manipulation, or influenced by the other two conversations.
The second is that between Man and God. We call this religion. Like science, the theologian is continually learning. Like science, he never quite arrives at the truth. But that does not mean he is entirely wrong, either.
The third conversation is between Man and Man. We call this philosophy. It is the argument of opinions. It is an opinion that homosexuality is bad. It is also an opinion that homosexuality is good. People who hold these opinions may pretend to call upon science or religion as support, but they remain opinions.
You say you do not want to burn heretics at the stake. But you would not mind seeing them unable to work or own a business, eh? Because you hate bigots so much. Your post drips with irony.
I'm not so sure why people need to read a fictional book that you recommend , I dont ask you to read Star Wars and try to make laws related to it that that affect everybody.
In fact, you do exactly that. You want legislation to support your opinion and you want others' opinions to be suppressed. What makes your opinion more valid than the opinion of others?
Honestly, it looks like pandering to religious interests and appears to be plainly in violation of the Establishment Clause, even as it insists in legalese that it isn't.
The problem is not your explanation - it is that you now seem to be addressing a different question. I'm not arguing about the pros and cons of a free market per se, that's a quite separate discussion. My original comment was in response to numerous posts, here and elsewhere, asserting that the simple pressures of a free market will prevent discrimination, even if the law allows it, i.e. gays, blacks, or whoever, will either take their business elsewhere or actually move to a different state. Setting aside whether expecting mass migration is a reasonable remedy to discrimination in a civilized country, my point was that, historically, simple economic pressures did not result in an end to discrimination - it required legislation, such as the civil rights laws.
Your initial response, which I don't disagree with, was that economic pressures and the social mood played a part in bringing about legislative changes, but that does not change the observation that it still took legislation to stop those widespread behaviors. A law that effectively condones discrimination, especially one that does so only if it is on religious grounds, is not going to help.
I don't think we're too far off. There's a subtle but important difference in my view of Socionomics that I'll try to explain concisely.
1. The social mood shifts
2. This is reflected in economic indicators. There was a depression just prior to the civil war
3. Violence, or boycotts/protests break out
4. The government REACTS with legislation.
You could argue that the Declaration of Independence triggered the Revolutionary War and the Emancipation Proclamation triggered the civil war, but that's not really true. Bitter disputes and violence were already underway in both cases, And it was the Constitution itself and then the 13th Amendment that were the real significant pieces of law. Likewise, Civil Rights act of 1964 FOLLOWED the mass protests and boycotts.
In other words, based on the prevalent Social Mood the crowd ACTS, and then the government REACTS.
That's a fine summary - I would not argue with any of it.
To "muppetry": Thanks for finding and posting the text of that law.
Honestly, it looks like pandering to religious interests and appears to be plainly in violation of the Establishment Clause, even as it insists in legalese that it isn't.
In fact, the Establishment Clause prohibits laws that curtail the free exercise of religion. It also prohibits restrictions of freedom of speech or association. Non-discrimination laws violate all three provisions of the Establishment clause.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What you are demanding sure sounds a lot like "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The law does not prohibit anyone from doing business with anyone, so it is not imposing a religious belief or practice on anyone. It merely restates what the Constitution says.
To "muppetry": Thanks for finding and posting the text of that law.
Honestly, it looks like pandering to religious interests and appears to be plainly in violation of the Establishment Clause, even as it insists in legalese that it isn't.
That's an interesting question. Doesn't the Establishment Clause simply outlaw legislation that favors one religion over another? This particular bill doesn't appear to do that, at least as far as I can see, and so I'm not clear how it does violate that. What are you seeing that would be in violation?
What do you think I'm "demanding"?
There was no need to pass this law in the first place. It's legislative hogwash addressing a non-existent problem and asserts the religious interests of that state via government control. That's a big no-no. This confused law need not reword and attempt to end-run what the Constitution already clearly lays out.
In fact, the Establishment Clause prohibits laws that curtail the free exercise of religion. It also prohibits restrictions of freedom of speech or association. Non-discrimination laws violate all three provisions of the Establishment clause.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What you are demanding sure sounds a lot like "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The law does not prohibit anyone from doing business with anyone, so it is not imposing a religious belief or practice on anyone. It merely restates what the Constitution says.
What do you think I'm "demanding"?
There was no need to pass this law in the first place. It's legislative hogwash addressing a non-existent problem and asserts the religious interests of that state via government control. That's a big no-no.
It seems to me that the main motivation was to provide more explicit protection to business entities that might face legal challenges to their refusal to do business with individuals based on their religious beliefs - specifically, in this case, in relation to same-sex marriage and related issues. The recent civil cases brought against photographers and bakers, together with the growing momentum to legalize same-sex marriage were probably the triggers.
I actually have no problem with the concept that one should not be required to do anything that violates ones belief system, so I have some sympathy for the photographer who does not want to attend and photograph a ceremony and behaviors that he feels are wrong or abhorrent to him. In contrast, the baker bakes cakes. A cake is a cake, and he is not being asked to participate in, or even observe, anything at all and so, in that case, discrimination is unreasonable.
In fact, you do exactly that. You want legislation to support your opinion and you want others' opinions to be suppressed. What makes your opinion more valid than the opinion of others?
I do? I don't want any laws in this case. The constitution is fine for me. All men are created equal.
Absolutely not! If you want to be homophobic bigot you have that right, but I also have the right to use sarcasm to express my disdain for such people.
Sludge.
A person is not a church, nor are they a business.
IMO, that churches and religious organizations are given tax-free status by the IRS I believe long ago plainly violated the Establishment Clause, as did the addition of "In God We Trust" to US currency.
Would you mind just explaining and justifying what you mean when you claim that science is subjective?
What do you think I'm "demanding"?
There was no need to pass this law in the first place. It's legislative hogwash addressing a non-existent problem and asserts the religious interests of that state via government control. That's a big no-no. This confused law need not reword and attempt to end-run what the Constitution already clearly lays out.
Exactly. On top of that, there are so few cases of actual harm that this law would prevent vs MANY cases where this law will cause harm. The photographer who does not want to do a job is the edge case, it can happen, but most SMART business people know how to avoid problems like this. On the other hand with this law there will be far more issues of harm, gays being kicked out of restaurants, taxi's or even being told not to shop in certain stores.
When a law causes more problems than it fixes there is a problem.