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.
I believe in minimal, constitutional government. What American government is today is far removed from constitutional.
I believe in minimal, constitutional government. What American government is today is far removed from constitutional.
True. There is a hell of a lot of laws that should be dropped, a ton of regulatory capture that should be weeded out. There are so many laws that were a good idea in the past but now are causing problems but government power rarely seems to go backwards.
Indiana passes a law that duplicates a Federal Law passed in 1993 sponsored by a Democratic Senator and passed by Senate vote of 97-3, is not intended to be used for discrimination, but to protect against retaliation against religious beliefs and NOW a bunch of people are objecting including THOSE THAT VOTED FOR THE FEDERAL LAW IN 1993.
Color me unimpressed with the political system.
Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained John McCormack
March 27, 2015 2:10 PM
On Thursday, Indiana governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law, and some celebrities, politicians, and journalists--including Miley Cyrus, Ashton Kutcher, and Hillary Clinton, just to name a few--are absolutely outraged. They say the law is a license to discriminate against gay people:
Meanwhile, activists are calling for a boycott. The CEO of SalesForce, a company that does business in China, is pulling out of Indiana. The NCAA has expressed concern about holding events there in the future. And the city of San Francisco is banning taxpayer-funded travel to the state.
Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act really a license to discriminate against gay people?
No. Stanford law professor Michael McConnell, a former appellate court judge, tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email: "In the decades that states have had RFRA statutes, no business has been given the right to discriminate against gay customers, or anyone else."
So what is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and what does it say?
The first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote.
The law reestablished a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases (a standard had been used by the Supreme Court for decades). RFRA allows a person's free exercise of religion to be "substantially burdened" by a law only if the law furthers a "compelling governmental interest" in the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
So the law doesn't say that a person making a religious claim will always win. In the years since RFRA has been on the books, sometimes the courts have ruled in favor of religious exemptions, but many othertimesthey haven't.
If there's already a federal RFRA in place, why did Indiana pass its own RFRA?
Great question. In a 1997 Supreme Court case (City of Boerne v. Flores), the court held that federal RFRA was generally inapplicable against state and local laws. Since then, a number of states have enacted their own RFRA statutes: Indiana became the twentieth to do so. Other states have state court rulings that provide RFRA-like protections. Here's a helpful map from 2014 that shows you which states have RFRA protections (note that Mississippi and Indiana have passed RFRA since this map was made):
Is there any difference between Indiana's law and the federal law?
Nothing significant. Here's the text of the federal RFRA:
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it 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.
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.
Indiana's RFRA makes it explicit that the law applies to persons engaged in business as well as citizens in private lawsuits, but until quite recently it had always been understood that federal RFRA covered businesses and private lawsuits. (See this post by law professor Josh Blackman for more on these matters.)
Late last night just outside the Senate chamber, I asked Senator Chuck Schumer of New York (who sponsored federal RFRA in 1993) to comment on the story. "Not right now," he replied. Schumer still hasn't found time to respond to this question on Twitter:
So why are so many people saying that Indiana's law is an unprecedented attack on gay people?
We shouldn't hold Ashton Kutcher and Miley Cyrus entirely responsible for their ignorance. Their job, after all, is to make bad music and bad movies, not report the news. Bad journalism is to blame here. See this CNN headline that says the law "allows biz to reject gay customers," or this New York Times story that makes the same claim while ignoring the fact that many other states and the federal government have the same law on the books.
Indiana's RFRA does not grant a license to discriminate. First of all, the state of Indiana, like 28 other states, has never prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation at public accommodations. Even without such laws in most states, discrimination doesn't commonly occur because the United States is a nation that is tolerant of gay people and intolerant of bigots. Mean-spirited actions by a business owner anywhere in the country would almost certainly be met with a major backlash.
It is true that several local ordinances in Indiana prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but RFRA does not declare that those ordinances are invalid if someone requests a religious exemption. Again, RFRA simply establishes the balancing test courts must apply in religious freedom cases.
As Stanford's Michael McConnell told me last year, RFRA laws haven't yet collided with public accommodation laws. But what if they do? "For the most part, I think the public accommodation laws are going to win out," McConnell said. "But I could imagine a circumstance where you have somebody renting out a bedroom in their house, and they have children they're trying to bring up in a particular way, and there would be some very specific conflict with their religion that I could imagine. If the couple could go anywhere and it's no real interference with their ability to find housing--these cases are just not all one way or the other. They depend powerfully on the particular circumstance."
That of course is a purely hypothetical case for now. In the real world, the debate concerning gay rights and religious freedom has focused on a handful of cases involving religious business owners who were penalized by the government for declining todecorate or photograph same-sex weddings. You could just as easily imagine a case in which a wedding singer declines to work a same-sex wedding ceremony because of religious objections. But a small number of conscientious objectors declining to participate commercially in same-sex weddings is quite different than the specter of Jim Crow for gay Americans--hotels and restaurants turning away gay people simply because they are gay.
The point of RFRA is not to discriminate against gay Americans. It is supposed to prevent the government from discriminating against religious Americans.
Indiana passes a law that duplicates a Federal Law passed in 1993 sponsored by a Democratic Senator and passed by Senate vote of 97-3, is not intended to be used for discrimination, but to protect against retaliation against religious beliefs and NOW a bunch of people are objecting including THOSE g governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Indiana's RFRA makes it explicit that the law applies to persons engaged in business as well as citizens in private lawsuits, but until quite recently it had always been understood that federal RFRA covered businesses and private lawsuits. (See this post by law professor Josh Blackman for more on these matters.)
Late last night just outside the Senate chamber, I asked Senator Chuck Schumer of New York (who sponsored federal RFRA in 1993) to comment on the story. "Not right now," he replied. Schumer still hasn't found time to respond to this question on Twitter:
So if there is already a federal law, what is the purpose of this law?
Would you mind just explaining and justifying what you mean when you claim that science is subjective?
Probably thinks that big business, some foreign conspiracy cabbal has an effect on science (i.e. global warming in the US, vaccination in many parts). The problem with that is a total misunderstanding of how science works as a whole. If a consensus is established around a point, it is not that there is a conspiracy or money supporting it, but that there are mountains of theories with studies to back them.
They seemingly think, as in all things that support conspiracy, that somehow scientists are either:
- Well paid shills
- Morally bankrupt shill
- Cowardly shills
- Lowly paid/slave shills
- Indoctrinated shills (Science as religion argument)
- Incompetent shills
- Power mad shills
- Conspiracy driven shill (also called government stooges)
- Agenda driven (whose agenda?) shills
- Unmotivated shills (they prefer a false status quo because its comfortable)
- An ego-less shills (they don't want the great attention that correcting a mistake would bring)
You get the drift.
The funny thing is that even if there was bias (and yes, there is, humans are biased),
a scientific field, and the fact that it relies on when it observes the world, will weed it out
before it becomes entrenched.
In the small closed up field of theoretical physics, far away from mere mortal' observations, bias and personal charisma can have a major influence. Because, well there's nothing to easily hang your hat on, and your so far out there that even if you were right, maybe there would be no human way to prove it. That's were string theory fits. But, even there, it never attained total orthodoxy, though it did gain a awful lot of traction; there have always been a major group of doubters.
Another theory that was also immensely hard to prove (though some believed that his proof had occured a long time ago) is inflation of the universe (doppler shift and all). The possible existence of dark matter and all kind of other things initially threw a wrench into the whole idea; they needed more proofs. But, in this case, it was possible to develop many hypothesis and tests them; inflation is indeed seemingly true. Though it is possible that the mechanism for it (Einstein-Newton expansion) may not be the only one ones at play.
In this case, some sort of orthodoxy (expansion already proven without a doubt), got rejibbed by new observations and then confirmed with a new twist. They didn't flog the new people which introduced the discovery that changed everythig; they were congratulated and it elevated their standing. That's how science works.
As for Global warming, that it is occurring is without doubt. The mechanism for it, the speed and full consequences are somewhat up for grabs. But, in public policy, when something really bad can possibly occur, you have to start preventing it, mitigating it, BEFORE its full consequences are know, because by then it may be too late (or the result catastrophic). That's why they set maximum exposure level to many products way bellow their currently understood toxicity level. Because long term consequences of even low level of exposure is not well understood. Say, if they had started regulating cigarettes 50 years ago; tens of milions of people would not have died and tens of billions of dollars would not have been spent on their care.
[@]rickag[/@], naming two laws the same thing does not equate to the laws being the same. You also can't pull a single paragraph of text to compare the two laws.
Also, what religious persecution are Indiana Christians protecting? I didn't hear him mention anything against protecting Muslims and other minority religion rights in Indiana.
That's correct Foggy... Scientists once believed and preached the earth was flat, the earth revolved around the sun, that if you were sick then bloodletting would cure you, that processed foods were ok for human consumption, and as recently as the 1960s, Thalidomide was a real excellent cure for morning sickness in pregnant women. LOL.
And we all know what the Nazi German scientists believed about race.
Today we've got pseudo-scientists like Al Gore and David Suziki living in colossal mansions and flying on private jets to influence government policy, taxation and spending to the tune of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in order to "help save the planet", all the while with major stock holdings in companies that profit from "green energy" and you NEVER hear a left winger discussing their hypocrisy or blatant bias. We just have to assume it's all true because it's the politically correct thing to believe and because the propaganda states that anyone who loves freedom and less government must be a "psychopathic privleged white male homophobic global warming denier neo-republican tea bagger white heterosexual privileged nutbar"... All that love and tolerance, right?
Science has given a lot of great benefits to humanity but it's not infallible, it's still subject to crowd psychology and Social Mood just like any institution.
And Science has now been elevated to the status of RELIGION, in the sense that if you as a civilian won't toe the party line, you're deemed a heretic know-nothing, or worse, driven from political office or your job. High Priests in lab coats with clipboards holding special knowledge that must never be questioned because "after all, we have a CONSENSUS!".
I'm supposed to believe that I magically evolved from a soup of amoebas, today with color vision and the ability to argue with your liberal ass, and yet the amoeba are still there surviving just fine, and this magical event is without any intelligent cause, and no this is not a FAIRY TALE, this is PURE SCIENCE... and we are speculating about things that happened millions of years before humans were on the planet and so no one was there to record or test the theory... so much for the "scientific model" !
And if a governor signs a law that states you can't sue a baker for refusing to celebrate a homosexual marriage based on his religious beliefs, watch out! The economic and political fury from the militant left will rain down hellfire on anyone daring to question this militancy, under the Orwellian horseshit meme of "tolerance" and "respect". I don't think even Orwell could write such compelling dark satire as this.
That's correct Foggy... Scientists once believed and preached the earth was flat, the earth revolved around the sun, that if you were sick then bloodletting would cure you, that processed foods were ok for human consumption, and as recently as the 1960s, Thalidomide was a real excellent cure for morning sickness in pregnant women. LOL.
And we all know what the Nazi German scientists believed about race.
Today we've got pseudo-scientists like Al Gore and David Suziki living in colossal mansions and flying on private jets to influence government policy, taxation and spending in order to "help save the planet", and you NEVER hear a left winger discussing their hypocrisy. We just assume it's all true because it's the politically correct thing to believe and because the propaganda states that anyone who loves freedom and less government must be a "psychopathic privleged white male homophobic global warming denier neb-republican tea bagger white heterosexual privileged nutbar"... All that love and tolerance, right?
Science has given a lot of great benefits to humanity but it's not infallible, it's still subject to crowd psychology and Social Mood just like any institution.
And Science has now been elevated to the status of RELIGION, in the sense that if you as a civilian won't toe the party line, you're deemed a heretic know-nothing, or worse, driven from political office or your job. High Priests in lab coats with clipboards holding special knowledge that cannot be question because "after all, we have a CONSENSUS!".
I'm supposed to believe that I magically evolved from a soup of amoebas, today with color vision and the ability to argue with your liberal ass, and yet the amoeba are still there surviving just fine, and this magical event is without any intelligent cause, and no this is not a FAIRY TALE, this is PURE SCIENCE... and we are speculating about things that happened millions of years before humans were on the planet and so no one was there to record or test the theory... so much for the "scientific model!"
And if a governor passes a law that states you can't sue a baker for refusing to celebrate a homosexual marriage based on his religious beliefs, watch out! The economic and political fury from the militant left will rain down hellfire on anyone daring to question this militancy, under the Orwellian horseshit meme of "tolerance" and "respect". I don't think even Orwell could write such compelling dark satire as this.
On climate change, to me the debate boils down to this: If the group of people that believe it is not detrimental to the planet are wrong what are the consequences if we do nothing? If the other side of the argument is wrong, climate change is detrimental to the planet, and we take action & move in that direction what are the consequences? In other words is there a net positive or a net negative to to either argument. Seems your belief, if wrong, would be the riskiest way to proceed. The rest is just politically charged rhetoric.
That's drivel. You obviously don't travel much, or read the newspaper, or even know a lot of people.
(Fwiw, I am not religious).
From my experience, and I've traveled far and wide, intolerance is universal among the ignorant and fearful; but I can also say that tolerance is universal among the compassionate. These traits seem to embody individuals, which no specific genetics or religious choice allowing people to treat their fellow man fairly.
That's correct Foggy... Scientists once believed and preached the earth was flat, the earth revolved around the sun, that if you were sick then bloodletting would cure you, that processed foods were ok for human consumption, and as recently as the 1960s, Thalidomide was a real excellent cure for morning sickness in pregnant women. LOL.
[…]
Today we've got pseudo-scientists like Al Gore...
HOLY **** THAT'S A LOT OF BULLSHIT! You don't know understand what the scientific method is if you think science has been elevated to not requiring repeatable empirical or measurable data in which to test a theory, or that science doesn't allow itself to be challenged with hew hypotheses.
And we all know what the Nazi German scientists believed about race.
Thank you for Godwinning this thread which proves that it has finally reached the pinnacle of stupidity with a claim that Nazi's conducting experiments were objective scientists looking for answers that didn't fit their specific narrative.
Science has given a lot of great benefits to humanity but it's not infallible, it's still subject to crowd psychology and Social Mood just like any institution.
Science is infallible because it purports nothing other than fact. If we misinterpret the data, skew the data, use poor methodologies, or start with a incomplete theory then we are to blame, not the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Also, what religious persecution are Indiana Christians protecting? I didn't hear him mention anything against protecting Muslims and other minority religion rights in Indiana.
It does protect all religions equally. Read Sec. 7 & Sec. 8.
The main emphasis of this law is that the Indiana state government cannot burden any individual or group who is exercising their religious beliefs. It can burden the individual or group only if it is necessary because a governmental interest and the least amount of burden to achieve that governmental interest.
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.
What problems does it cause? How do SMART people avoid obeying the law?
On climate change, to me the debate boils down to this: If the group of people that believe it is not detrimental to the planet are wrong what are the consequences if we do nothing? If the other side of the argument is wrong, climate change is detrimental to the planet, and we take action & move in that direction what are the consequences? In other words is there a net positive or a net negative to to either argument. Seems your belief has the, if wrong, would be the riskiest way to proceed. The rest is just politically charged rhetoric.
I agree with you. But what is the action we should take?
I see no one taking a stand on this issue giving up petroleum based products like ... plastics, automobiles, or anything that would supposedly mitigate the causes.
I would like to see a Venn Diagram of how many people who believe that a) global warming/climate change is man made and b) the majority of global warming gasses are caused by cattle production/rainforest destruction and therefore have c) stopped eating meat, using any animal products or anything that comes from chopping down trees like wood or paper.
Then there's the problem with veganism. If you're not using animals in farming, then the vegetables aren't as healthy, and you need more chemical fertilizers. Without farm animals to plow the fields, you need machines which burn gasoline.
So I see inconclusive evidence, I see those screaming the loudest having economic interests and biases to do so (Gore & Suzuki) and I see little solutions except to raise taxes and "invest" in spurious programs. For example in Ontario Canada many farmers are furious about wind energy being imposed. These wind turbines kill a lot of birds, are expensive, and are believed to create negative health effects, with both sides accusing each other of being psycho and motivated by an insincere agenda:
Quote:
She said farmers considering having the turbines on their property need to think hard before accepting the deals being offered.
“Our neighbour came and asked if we would have a problem with them having one, and I said ‘Not at all,’” she said. “I was for wind energy. We thought we were helping the world.”
Her opinion is far different now.
Every time the wind turbine issue has come to a West Lincoln township council meeting, contention has ensued.
Now, meetings are being held at South Lincoln high school, which can hold nearly 800 people.
Wearing bright red ‘No Wind’ T-shirts, the development proponents have been extremely vocal from the start.
Their main concerns deal with the perceived health risks, decreased property values and the effects on wildlife.
It's not so simple as the left wants us to believe. I believe most people want clean drinking water, safe food and fresh air. Most people would like to see poverty and homelessness reduced or eradicated. Where we differ is on the best ways to achieve those things. Those differences, in my opinion, are at a boiling point.
From my experience, and I've traveled far and wide, intolerance is universal among the ignorant and fearful; but I can also say that tolerance is universal among the compassionate. These traits seem to embody individuals, which no specific genetic, religious, or geogrpahical reasons that will make an entire nation of people treat those in which
HOLY **** THAT'S A LOT OF BULLSHIT! You don't know understand what the scientific method is if you think science has been elevated to not requiring repeatable empirical or measurable data in which to test a theory, or that science doesn't allow itself to be challenged with hew hypotheses.
But thank you for Godwinning this thread which proves that it has finally reached the pinnacle of stupidity with a claim that Nazi's conducting experiments were objective scientists looking for answers that didn't fit their specific narrative.
Oh, it can be challenged BY OTHER SCIENTISTS. Take all the examples I've listed: Geocentricism, bloodletting, Thalidomide... and tell me what would happen to a scientist who had a different idea to the "consensus".
But if I as a layman say that Global Warming isn't real – or seemingly worse than that – if I argue it's not man made... just watch what happens to me. Ridicule, scorn, and a pointing to the "consensus".
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.
The Supreme Court has consistently disagreed with you. No one should be required to pay a tax or get a license in order to worship as they wish. Requiring a church to pay a tax in order to exist is as objectionable as a poll tax. The whole point of the Establishment Clause is to guarantee basic civil rights. If you can have your civil rights taken away simply for failure to pay a tax on those rights, then no one has any civil rights at all. Including you.
The Supreme Court has consistently disagreed with you. No one should be required to pay a tax or get a license in order to worship as they wish. Requiring a church to pay a tax in order to exist is as objectionable as a poll tax. The whole point of the Establishment Clause is to guarantee basic civil rights. If you can have your civil rights taken away simply for failure to pay a tax on those rights, then no one has any civil rights at all. Including you.
I like Cook, but at the risk of being the contrarian here I think he should keep the focus 100% on Apple and on the products. Anything unrelated to Apple is a distraction and not his job to fix. If he wants to be a political activist, he should make that his focus.
Following your logic, SpamSandwich, actors, actresses, and musicians, and other public figures who support various causes--including equality--should focus 100% on their acting and/or music and politics, and should never make a public comment on Twitter in either support or disapproval of a social issue. Lady Gaga, for example... Cook is a respected social figure...
Oh, it can be challenged BY OTHER SCIENTISTS. Take all the examples I've listed: Geocentricism, bloodletting, Thalidomide... and tell me what would happen to a scientist who had a different idea to the "consensus".
But if I as a layman say that Global Warming isn't real – or seemingly worse than that – if I argue it's not man made... just watch what happens to me. Ridicule, scorn, and a pointing to the "consensus".
1) It happens constantly, which is why we have constant change in science. Science is designed to be tested and challenged, as well as re-proven.
2) You, as a layman, could formulate a solid hypothesis and as well as a series of experiments to help argue your point, but just saying "Not uh! God blah blah blah," does not an arguments make.
3) Those that ignore the science are not being scientific. If you have sufficient data that suggests that climate change can not be affected by anything manmade then go ahead and publish it. Some unscientific minds will dismiss it just as some unscientific minds will accept it, regardless of the evidence, but there will be some that will surely go in with an open mind and test your findings. This is how science works…. and it's a beautiful thing.
I agree with you. But what is the action we should take?
I see no one taking a stand on this issue giving up petroleum based products like ... plastics, automobiles, or anything that would supposedly mitigate the causes.
Comments
Just me? Why doesn't everyone post links instead of (gasp) comments in the comments section?
I believe in minimal, constitutional government. What American government is today is far removed from constitutional.
At least you keep your anti-gay, pro-bigotry arguments to a single word.
I believe in minimal, constitutional government. What American government is today is far removed from constitutional.
True. There is a hell of a lot of laws that should be dropped, a ton of regulatory capture that should be weeded out. There are so many laws that were a good idea in the past but now are causing problems but government power rarely seems to go backwards.
Indiana passes a law that duplicates a Federal Law passed in 1993 sponsored by a Democratic Senator and passed by Senate vote of 97-3, is not intended to be used for discrimination, but to protect against retaliation against religious beliefs and NOW a bunch of people are objecting including THOSE THAT VOTED FOR THE FEDERAL LAW IN 1993.
Color me unimpressed with the political system.
Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained John McCormack
On Thursday, Indiana governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law, and some celebrities, politicians, and journalists--including Miley Cyrus, Ashton Kutcher, and Hillary Clinton, just to name a few--are absolutely outraged. They say the law is a license to discriminate against gay people:
Meanwhile, activists are calling for a boycott. The CEO of SalesForce, a company that does business in China, is pulling out of Indiana. The NCAA has expressed concern about holding events there in the future. And the city of San Francisco is banning taxpayer-funded travel to the state.
Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act really a license to discriminate against gay people?
No. Stanford law professor Michael McConnell, a former appellate court judge, tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email: "In the decades that states have had RFRA statutes, no business has been given the right to discriminate against gay customers, or anyone else."
So what is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and what does it say?
The first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote.
The law reestablished a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases (a standard had been used by the Supreme Court for decades). RFRA allows a person's free exercise of religion to be "substantially burdened" by a law only if the law furthers a "compelling governmental interest" in the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
So the law doesn't say that a person making a religious claim will always win. In the years since RFRA has been on the books, sometimes the courts have ruled in favor of religious exemptions, but many other times they haven't.
If there's already a federal RFRA in place, why did Indiana pass its own RFRA?
Great question. In a 1997 Supreme Court case (City of Boerne v. Flores), the court held that federal RFRA was generally inapplicable against state and local laws. Since then, a number of states have enacted their own RFRA statutes: Indiana became the twentieth to do so. Other states have state court rulings that provide RFRA-like protections. Here's a helpful map from 2014 that shows you which states have RFRA protections (note that Mississippi and Indiana have passed RFRA since this map was made):
Is there any difference between Indiana's law and the federal law?
Nothing significant. Here's the text of the federal RFRA:
And here is the text of Indiana's RFRA:
Indiana's RFRA makes it explicit that the law applies to persons engaged in business as well as citizens in private lawsuits, but until quite recently it had always been understood that federal RFRA covered businesses and private lawsuits. (See this post by law professor Josh Blackman for more on these matters.)
Late last night just outside the Senate chamber, I asked Senator Chuck Schumer of New York (who sponsored federal RFRA in 1993) to comment on the story. "Not right now," he replied. Schumer still hasn't found time to respond to this question on Twitter:
So why are so many people saying that Indiana's law is an unprecedented attack on gay people?
We shouldn't hold Ashton Kutcher and Miley Cyrus entirely responsible for their ignorance. Their job, after all, is to make bad music and bad movies, not report the news. Bad journalism is to blame here. See this CNN headline that says the law "allows biz to reject gay customers," or this New York Times story that makes the same claim while ignoring the fact that many other states and the federal government have the same law on the books.
Indiana's RFRA does not grant a license to discriminate. First of all, the state of Indiana, like 28 other states, has never prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation at public accommodations. Even without such laws in most states, discrimination doesn't commonly occur because the United States is a nation that is tolerant of gay people and intolerant of bigots. Mean-spirited actions by a business owner anywhere in the country would almost certainly be met with a major backlash.
It is true that several local ordinances in Indiana prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but RFRA does not declare that those ordinances are invalid if someone requests a religious exemption. Again, RFRA simply establishes the balancing test courts must apply in religious freedom cases.
As Stanford's Michael McConnell told me last year, RFRA laws haven't yet collided with public accommodation laws. But what if they do? "For the most part, I think the public accommodation laws are going to win out," McConnell said. "But I could imagine a circumstance where you have somebody renting out a bedroom in their house, and they have children they're trying to bring up in a particular way, and there would be some very specific conflict with their religion that I could imagine. If the couple could go anywhere and it's no real interference with their ability to find housing--these cases are just not all one way or the other. They depend powerfully on the particular circumstance."
That of course is a purely hypothetical case for now. In the real world, the debate concerning gay rights and religious freedom has focused on a handful of cases involving religious business owners who were penalized by the government for declining to decorate or photograph same-sex weddings. You could just as easily imagine a case in which a wedding singer declines to work a same-sex wedding ceremony because of religious objections. But a small number of conscientious objectors declining to participate commercially in same-sex weddings is quite different than the specter of Jim Crow for gay Americans--hotels and restaurants turning away gay people simply because they are gay.
The point of RFRA is not to discriminate against gay Americans. It is supposed to prevent the government from discriminating against religious Americans.
Indiana passes a law that duplicates a Federal Law passed in 1993 sponsored by a Democratic Senator and passed by Senate vote of 97-3, is not intended to be used for discrimination, but to protect against retaliation against religious beliefs and NOW a bunch of people are objecting including THOSE g governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Indiana's RFRA makes it explicit that the law applies to persons engaged in business as well as citizens in private lawsuits, but until quite recently it had always been understood that federal RFRA covered businesses and private lawsuits. (See this post by law professor Josh Blackman for more on these matters.)
Late last night just outside the Senate chamber, I asked Senator Chuck Schumer of New York (who sponsored federal RFRA in 1993) to comment on the story. "Not right now," he replied. Schumer still hasn't found time to respond to this question on Twitter:
So if there is already a federal law, what is the purpose of this law?
Would you mind just explaining and justifying what you mean when you claim that science is subjective?
Probably thinks that big business, some foreign conspiracy cabbal has an effect on science (i.e. global warming in the US, vaccination in many parts). The problem with that is a total misunderstanding of how science works as a whole. If a consensus is established around a point, it is not that there is a conspiracy or money supporting it, but that there are mountains of theories with studies to back them.
They seemingly think, as in all things that support conspiracy, that somehow scientists are either:
- Well paid shills
- Morally bankrupt shill
- Cowardly shills
- Lowly paid/slave shills
- Indoctrinated shills (Science as religion argument)
- Incompetent shills
- Power mad shills
- Conspiracy driven shill (also called government stooges)
- Agenda driven (whose agenda?) shills
- Unmotivated shills (they prefer a false status quo because its comfortable)
- An ego-less shills (they don't want the great attention that correcting a mistake would bring)
You get the drift.
The funny thing is that even if there was bias (and yes, there is, humans are biased),
a scientific field, and the fact that it relies on when it observes the world, will weed it out
before it becomes entrenched.
In the small closed up field of theoretical physics, far away from mere mortal' observations, bias and personal charisma can have a major influence. Because, well there's nothing to easily hang your hat on, and your so far out there that even if you were right, maybe there would be no human way to prove it. That's were string theory fits. But, even there, it never attained total orthodoxy, though it did gain a awful lot of traction; there have always been a major group of doubters.
Another theory that was also immensely hard to prove (though some believed that his proof had occured a long time ago) is inflation of the universe (doppler shift and all). The possible existence of dark matter and all kind of other things initially threw a wrench into the whole idea; they needed more proofs. But, in this case, it was possible to develop many hypothesis and tests them; inflation is indeed seemingly true. Though it is possible that the mechanism for it (Einstein-Newton expansion) may not be the only one ones at play.
In this case, some sort of orthodoxy (expansion already proven without a doubt), got rejibbed by new observations and then confirmed with a new twist. They didn't flog the new people which introduced the discovery that changed everythig; they were congratulated and it elevated their standing. That's how science works.
As for Global warming, that it is occurring is without doubt. The mechanism for it, the speed and full consequences are somewhat up for grabs. But, in public policy, when something really bad can possibly occur, you have to start preventing it, mitigating it, BEFORE its full consequences are know, because by then it may be too late (or the result catastrophic). That's why they set maximum exposure level to many products way bellow their currently understood toxicity level. Because long term consequences of even low level of exposure is not well understood. Say, if they had started regulating cigarettes 50 years ago; tens of milions of people would not have died and tens of billions of dollars would not have been spent on their care.
Also, what religious persecution are Indiana Christians protecting? I didn't hear him mention anything against protecting Muslims and other minority religion rights in Indiana.
That's correct Foggy... Scientists once believed and preached the earth was flat, the earth revolved around the sun, that if you were sick then bloodletting would cure you, that processed foods were ok for human consumption, and as recently as the 1960s, Thalidomide was a real excellent cure for morning sickness in pregnant women. LOL.
And we all know what the Nazi German scientists believed about race.
Today we've got pseudo-scientists like Al Gore and David Suziki living in colossal mansions and flying on private jets to influence government policy, taxation and spending to the tune of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in order to "help save the planet", all the while with major stock holdings in companies that profit from "green energy" and you NEVER hear a left winger discussing their hypocrisy or blatant bias. We just have to assume it's all true because it's the politically correct thing to believe and because the propaganda states that anyone who loves freedom and less government must be a "psychopathic privleged white male homophobic global warming denier neo-republican tea bagger white heterosexual privileged nutbar"... All that love and tolerance, right?
Science has given a lot of great benefits to humanity but it's not infallible, it's still subject to crowd psychology and Social Mood just like any institution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology
And Science has now been elevated to the status of RELIGION, in the sense that if you as a civilian won't toe the party line, you're deemed a heretic know-nothing, or worse, driven from political office or your job. High Priests in lab coats with clipboards holding special knowledge that must never be questioned because "after all, we have a CONSENSUS!".
I'm supposed to believe that I magically evolved from a soup of amoebas, today with color vision and the ability to argue with your liberal ass, and yet the amoeba are still there surviving just fine, and this magical event is without any intelligent cause, and no this is not a FAIRY TALE, this is PURE SCIENCE... and we are speculating about things that happened millions of years before humans were on the planet and so no one was there to record or test the theory... so much for the "scientific model" !
And if a governor signs a law that states you can't sue a baker for refusing to celebrate a homosexual marriage based on his religious beliefs, watch out! The economic and political fury from the militant left will rain down hellfire on anyone daring to question this militancy, under the Orwellian horseshit meme of "tolerance" and "respect". I don't think even Orwell could write such compelling dark satire as this.
That's correct Foggy... Scientists once believed and preached the earth was flat, the earth revolved around the sun, that if you were sick then bloodletting would cure you, that processed foods were ok for human consumption, and as recently as the 1960s, Thalidomide was a real excellent cure for morning sickness in pregnant women. LOL.
And we all know what the Nazi German scientists believed about race.
Today we've got pseudo-scientists like Al Gore and David Suziki living in colossal mansions and flying on private jets to influence government policy, taxation and spending in order to "help save the planet", and you NEVER hear a left winger discussing their hypocrisy. We just assume it's all true because it's the politically correct thing to believe and because the propaganda states that anyone who loves freedom and less government must be a "psychopathic privleged white male homophobic global warming denier neb-republican tea bagger white heterosexual privileged nutbar"... All that love and tolerance, right?
Science has given a lot of great benefits to humanity but it's not infallible, it's still subject to crowd psychology and Social Mood just like any institution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology
And Science has now been elevated to the status of RELIGION, in the sense that if you as a civilian won't toe the party line, you're deemed a heretic know-nothing, or worse, driven from political office or your job. High Priests in lab coats with clipboards holding special knowledge that cannot be question because "after all, we have a CONSENSUS!".
I'm supposed to believe that I magically evolved from a soup of amoebas, today with color vision and the ability to argue with your liberal ass, and yet the amoeba are still there surviving just fine, and this magical event is without any intelligent cause, and no this is not a FAIRY TALE, this is PURE SCIENCE... and we are speculating about things that happened millions of years before humans were on the planet and so no one was there to record or test the theory... so much for the "scientific model!"
And if a governor passes a law that states you can't sue a baker for refusing to celebrate a homosexual marriage based on his religious beliefs, watch out! The economic and political fury from the militant left will rain down hellfire on anyone daring to question this militancy, under the Orwellian horseshit meme of "tolerance" and "respect". I don't think even Orwell could write such compelling dark satire as this.
On climate change, to me the debate boils down to this: If the group of people that believe it is not detrimental to the planet are wrong what are the consequences if we do nothing? If the other side of the argument is wrong, climate change is detrimental to the planet, and we take action & move in that direction what are the consequences? In other words is there a net positive or a net negative to to either argument. Seems your belief, if wrong, would be the riskiest way to proceed. The rest is just politically charged rhetoric.
From my experience, and I've traveled far and wide, intolerance is universal among the ignorant and fearful; but I can also say that tolerance is universal among the compassionate. These traits seem to embody individuals, which no specific genetics or religious choice allowing people to treat their fellow man fairly.
HOLY **** THAT'S A LOT OF BULLSHIT! You don't know understand what the scientific method is if you think science has been elevated to not requiring repeatable empirical or measurable data in which to test a theory, or that science doesn't allow itself to be challenged with hew hypotheses.
Thank you for Godwinning this thread which proves that it has finally reached the pinnacle of stupidity with a claim that Nazi's conducting experiments were objective scientists looking for answers that didn't fit their specific narrative.
Science is infallible because it purports nothing other than fact. If we misinterpret the data, skew the data, use poor methodologies, or start with a incomplete theory then we are to blame, not the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Also, what religious persecution are Indiana Christians protecting? I didn't hear him mention anything against protecting Muslims and other minority religion rights in Indiana.
It does protect all religions equally. Read Sec. 7 & Sec. 8.
The main emphasis of this law is that the Indiana state government cannot burden any individual or group who is exercising their religious beliefs. It can burden the individual or group only if it is necessary because a governmental interest and the least amount of burden to achieve that governmental interest.
It does not prevent anyone from being sued.
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.
What problems does it cause? How do SMART people avoid obeying the law?
On climate change, to me the debate boils down to this: If the group of people that believe it is not detrimental to the planet are wrong what are the consequences if we do nothing? If the other side of the argument is wrong, climate change is detrimental to the planet, and we take action & move in that direction what are the consequences? In other words is there a net positive or a net negative to to either argument. Seems your belief has the, if wrong, would be the riskiest way to proceed. The rest is just politically charged rhetoric.
I agree with you. But what is the action we should take?
I see no one taking a stand on this issue giving up petroleum based products like ... plastics, automobiles, or anything that would supposedly mitigate the causes.
I would like to see a Venn Diagram of how many people who believe that a) global warming/climate change is man made and b) the majority of global warming gasses are caused by cattle production/rainforest destruction and therefore have c) stopped eating meat, using any animal products or anything that comes from chopping down trees like wood or paper.
Then there's the problem with veganism. If you're not using animals in farming, then the vegetables aren't as healthy, and you need more chemical fertilizers. Without farm animals to plow the fields, you need machines which burn gasoline.
So I see inconclusive evidence, I see those screaming the loudest having economic interests and biases to do so (Gore & Suzuki) and I see little solutions except to raise taxes and "invest" in spurious programs. For example in Ontario Canada many farmers are furious about wind energy being imposed. These wind turbines kill a lot of birds, are expensive, and are believed to create negative health effects, with both sides accusing each other of being psycho and motivated by an insincere agenda:
She said farmers considering having the turbines on their property need to think hard before accepting the deals being offered.
“Our neighbour came and asked if we would have a problem with them having one, and I said ‘Not at all,’” she said. “I was for wind energy. We thought we were helping the world.”
Her opinion is far different now.
Every time the wind turbine issue has come to a West Lincoln township council meeting, contention has ensued.
Now, meetings are being held at South Lincoln high school, which can hold nearly 800 people.
Wearing bright red ‘No Wind’ T-shirts, the development proponents have been extremely vocal from the start.
Their main concerns deal with the perceived health risks, decreased property values and the effects on wildlife.
http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/2013/02/01/two-sides-of-wind-turbine-debate
It's not so simple as the left wants us to believe. I believe most people want clean drinking water, safe food and fresh air. Most people would like to see poverty and homelessness reduced or eradicated. Where we differ is on the best ways to achieve those things. Those differences, in my opinion, are at a boiling point.
From my experience, and I've traveled far and wide, intolerance is universal among the ignorant and fearful; but I can also say that tolerance is universal among the compassionate. These traits seem to embody individuals, which no specific genetic, religious, or geogrpahical reasons that will make an entire nation of people treat those in which
HOLY **** THAT'S A LOT OF BULLSHIT! You don't know understand what the scientific method is if you think science has been elevated to not requiring repeatable empirical or measurable data in which to test a theory, or that science doesn't allow itself to be challenged with hew hypotheses.
But thank you for Godwinning this thread which proves that it has finally reached the pinnacle of stupidity with a claim that Nazi's conducting experiments were objective scientists looking for answers that didn't fit their specific narrative.
Oh, it can be challenged BY OTHER SCIENTISTS. Take all the examples I've listed: Geocentricism, bloodletting, Thalidomide... and tell me what would happen to a scientist who had a different idea to the "consensus".
But if I as a layman say that Global Warming isn't real – or seemingly worse than that – if I argue it's not man made... just watch what happens to me. Ridicule, scorn, and a pointing to the "consensus".
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.
The Supreme Court has consistently disagreed with you. No one should be required to pay a tax or get a license in order to worship as they wish. Requiring a church to pay a tax in order to exist is as objectionable as a poll tax. The whole point of the Establishment Clause is to guarantee basic civil rights. If you can have your civil rights taken away simply for failure to pay a tax on those rights, then no one has any civil rights at all. Including you.
The Supreme Court has consistently disagreed with you. No one should be required to pay a tax or get a license in order to worship as they wish. Requiring a church to pay a tax in order to exist is as objectionable as a poll tax. The whole point of the Establishment Clause is to guarantee basic civil rights. If you can have your civil rights taken away simply for failure to pay a tax on those rights, then no one has any civil rights at all. Including you.
Income tax?
I like Cook, but at the risk of being the contrarian here I think he should keep the focus 100% on Apple and on the products. Anything unrelated to Apple is a distraction and not his job to fix. If he wants to be a political activist, he should make that his focus.
Following your logic, SpamSandwich, actors, actresses, and musicians, and other public figures who support various causes--including equality--should focus 100% on their acting and/or music and politics, and should never make a public comment on Twitter in either support or disapproval of a social issue. Lady Gaga, for example... Cook is a respected social figure...
1) It happens constantly, which is why we have constant change in science. Science is designed to be tested and challenged, as well as re-proven.
2) You, as a layman, could formulate a solid hypothesis and as well as a series of experiments to help argue your point, but just saying "Not uh! God blah blah blah," does not an arguments make.
3) Those that ignore the science are not being scientific. If you have sufficient data that suggests that climate change can not be affected by anything manmade then go ahead and publish it. Some unscientific minds will dismiss it just as some unscientific minds will accept it, regardless of the evidence, but there will be some that will surely go in with an open mind and test your findings. This is how science works…. and it's a beautiful thing.
I agree with you. But what is the action we should take?
I see no one taking a stand on this issue giving up petroleum based products like ... plastics, automobiles, or anything that would supposedly mitigate the causes.
You were questioning the science.