What a freaking moron!! Arrogance and idiocy are a bad combination. Culture and ethics existed long before this book of incoherent and self-contradictory stories was written. Judeo-Christian mythology is derivative and unoriginal. Only those raised in Christian cults think otherwise.
The word "unoriginal" comes up in this thread a lot. Guess I don't understand what an *original* religion/faith is. Honest question.
Are you saying every Christian is a bigot or does the hypothetical atheist baker take the time to get to know the customer and quiz them on their views before coming to that conclusion?
Since there are many bakers in any city or certainly in any county in the 50 states of the USA, I would imagine that most Christians (or anyone in general) would prefer not to have their cake made by someone who had no desire to make it for them. Have you heard the phrase "I'm going to take my business elsewhere?" We live in a capitalistic society regardless of religion. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">There is someone in the general vicinity of everyone who would gladly perform most any legal service for everyone for a price. Because of this it seems like utter nonsense for anyone to desire said service to be performed by someone who doesn't want to perform that service for them. </span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">If you legally force someone to make you a cake/flower </span>
arrangements<span style="line-height:1.4em;">/photos, but their heart isn't in the work (even if they aren't trying to </span>
sabotage<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> things at all) you will likely be unsatisfied with the results. Does that sound like something you want for your wedding or any other event?</span>
Let me guess, you're a white, heterosexual, Christian man? Everything looks simple when you're in the power position. I agree with the spirit of your post on many levels. But I also think you're quite naive. What you're suggesting is a return to "whites only" establishments with the wildly optimistic belief that the "market" will punish the bigots. Businesses exist to serve the public good as much as to provide a livelihood for the owners and employees. If you don't want to serve certain types of people in your business, then I suggest not getting into business in the first place.
Let me guess, you're a white, heterosexual, Christian man? Everything looks simple when you're in the power position. I agree with the spirit of your post on many levels. But I also think you're quite naive. What you're suggesting is a return to "whites only" establishments with the wildly optimistic belief that the "market" will punish the bigots. Businesses exist to serve the public good as much as to provide a livelihood for the owners and employees. If you don't want to serve certain types of people in your business, then I suggest not getting into business in the first place.
I'll be kind and answer your question, Yes. Now would you care to answer any of the valid questions that I asked of you but you simply ignored in your response? Thanks!
Let me guess, you're a white, heterosexual, Christian man? Everything looks simple when you're in the power position. I agree with the spirit of your post on many levels. But I also think you're quite naive. What you're suggesting is a return to "whites only" establishments with the wildly optimistic belief that the "market" will punish the bigots. Businesses exist to serve the public good as much as to provide a livelihood for the owners and employees. If you don't want to serve certain types of people in your business, then I suggest not getting into business in the first place.
Why assume the poster was automatically some kind of racist?
I'll be kind and answer your question, Yes. Now would you care to answer any of the valid questions that I asked of you but you simply ignored in your response? Thanks!
I don't really feel the need to answer your post, question by question. I think my reply was pretty clear. I agree with the spirit of your post. But I think it's naive. Yes, I'm sure no one wants his or her wedding cake baked by someone who didn't want to do the job. Agreed. And in that context, your position seems harmless enough. But what if we're talking about a doctor who refuses to see black patients or a pharmacist who refuses to provide HIV drugs. You are flat out wrong to assume that everyone can easily take his or her business elsewhere. The poor don't have that luxury.
I don't really feel the need to answer your post, question by question. I think my reply was pretty clear. I agree with the spirit of your post. But I think it's naive. Yes, I'm sure no one wants his or her wedding cake baked by someone who didn't want to do the job. Agreed. And in that context, your position seems harmless enough. But what if we're talking about a doctor who refuses to see black patients or a pharmacist who refuses to provide HIV drugs. You are flat out wrong to assume that everyone can easily take his or her business elsewhere. The poor don't have that luxury.
The question you still have refused to answer is "Do you think all Christians are bigots?" It seemed as though you were imply that with your original post and it seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to ask clarification on. I'm trying not to read anything into your avoidance of the reasonable, but you're making it really difficult.
The question you still have refused to answer is "Do you think all Christians are bigots?" It seemed as though you were imply that with your original post and it seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to ask clarification on. I'm trying not to read anything into your avoidance of the reasonable, but you're making it really difficult.
Oh, sorry, I should have realized you were stuck on that question. No, I don't think all Christians are bigots, but I think the ones championing these bull**** "religious freedom" laws from the comfort of their legally protected position in society are total bigots. And hypocrites. And generally all around worthless meat sacks.
I could also read a lot into your fixation with me answering a pointless question over you ignoring everything I've written in my previous two replies because you're so fixated on whether or not I think all Christians are bigots. You've only further reinforced my general opinion about Christians though, whether I read anything into your fixation or not.
Said by SpamSandwich in reply to: "Originally Posted by Z8O1
So you still think that "owners of a privately-owned small business" can put up a sign saying "we do not serve or sell to black people, non-Christians, or non-heterosexuals? Are you serious?
Spam, like Rip Van Winkle, you must have just woken up from a long sleep:
"On July 2, 1964, Johnson signed the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964.[24][25] It invoked the commerce clause[24] to outlaw discrimination in public accommodations (privately owned restaurants, hotels, and stores, and in private schools and workplaces). This use of the commerce clause was upheld in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States 379 US 241 (1964).[26]
If you were not yet born in 1964, then I would at least assume you learned the law of the land in grade school or high school?
Or are you just living in a fantasy world of your own making?
I think that it is absolutely fascinating that you, SpamSandwich, though busy as a bee posting numerous "personal opinion" comments since the above post quoting the law of the land as settled way back in 1964:
"On July 2, 1964, Johnson signed the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964.[24][25] It invoked the commerce clause[24] to outlaw discrimination in public accommodations (privately owned restaurants, hotels, and stores, and in private schools and workplaces). This use of the commerce clause was upheld in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States 379 US 241 (1964).[26]
have totally failed to acknowledge that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 invoked the commerce clause to outlaw discrimination in public accommodations (privately owned restaurants, hotels, and stores, and in private schools and workplaces). and that the Courts have been upholding and applying this law since 1964.
Is that how you deal with the laws in this country that you don't like? You just pretend that they don't exist? And just keep repeating your arguments?
The issue is that this law DOES NOT do what you are arguing against!
First, this law has ALREADY existed for 20 years, both in federal law and in other states. The federal law was signed into law by a democrat, Clinton.
What this law does is stipulate a test to for the courts to use when a government interest conflicts with a personal, or group's religious interests.
For one, it generally cannot be used by publicly traded companies (or at least it shouldn't), as it would be impossible to assert that all of the owners of the company agree on a particular religious view
Secondly, it should not lead to the kind of discrimination people are pandering against, both here and in the leftist media.
As one would have to show that they posses a deeply held religious belief that some law substantially burdens;
And even if a law were to burden a religious person, if the government can show that it has a compelling interest in doing so, and there is no less burdensome means, then the government can still enforce the law on the individual/group.
SO, for a sandwich shop to not serve gays, the owner would somehow have to show that his deeply held religious principles prohibits serving of food to sinners, or that homosexuality is some special class of sin that he is prohibited from feeding. However, as most Christian religions hold that all men are sinners, that argument wouldn't hold water, as he clearly servers other sinners, (lairs, cheats, etc) and probably has served gays in the past, unknowingly. And the government would simply have to argue that it has a compelling interest in equally enforcing title VII, etc.
Also, in 20 years since this law has existed elsewhere, there hasn't been many major cases where it had been used to discriminate against anyone. At least not the type of discrimination people are afraid of. (the biggest such case being Hobby Lobby, and that was an iffy decision)
It has, however, been actually used to allow a Muslim prisoner to keep a 1/2" beard, as required by his religion, against the prison's dress code that requires men be clean shaven.
It has been used to allow native Americans to use peyote (normally illegal) in religious ceremonies, and to wear feathers in head dress (normally illegal). And UDV (a Brazilian spiritual religion) to use a native tea as communion. This tea was confiscated as a drug. This law got it returned.
It has been used to allow Sikh's to wear a kirpan, a ceremonial knife (which is intentionally dull so as not to be dangerous), in federal buildings (such as IRS). The IRS refused even though they allowed employee's to have scissors, box cutters, and letter openers, all of which are more dangerous than a kirpan.
It has been used to allow a native american child to attend school even though his hair wasn't up to Texas school dress code ("Boy's hair shall not touch any part of the ear")
The issue is that this law DOES NOT do what you are arguing against!
First, this law has ALREADY existed for 20 years, both in federal law and in other states. The federal law was signed into law by a democrat, Clinton.
What this law does is stipulate a test to for the courts to use when a government interest conflicts with a personal, or group's religious interests.
If you had actually read the Federal Law and Indiana's new law and compared them side-by-side, you would know that the above assertion is a fable and a myth. The only thing these two laws have in common is their title.
In case you have not already noticed, nearly all bills introduced and voted into law by Republican majorities are falsely named and generally do the opposite of what their title states.
Judging by what you have asserted, that strategy seems to be working quite well for them.
At the risk of talking to a wall, I would suggest you go out and research exactly HOW this version does differ from previous laws (hint: Indiana specifically exculded certain people from anti dicrimnation regulations).
Also, try not to get all your news from the far right...
The issue is that this law DOES NOT do what you are arguing against!
First, this law has ALREADY existed for 20 years, both in federal law and in other states. The federal law was signed into law by a democrat, Clinton.
What this law does is stipulate a test to for the courts to use when a government interest conflicts with a personal, or group's religious interests.
For one, it generally cannot be used by publicly traded companies (or at least it shouldn't), as it would be impossible to assert that all of the owners of the company agree on a particular religious view
Secondly, it should not lead to the kind of discrimination people are pandering against, both here and in the leftist media.
As one would have to show that they posses a deeply held religious belief that some law substantially burdens;
And even if a law were to burden a religious person, if the government can show that it has a compelling interest in doing so, and there is no less burdensome means, then the government can still enforce the law on the individual/group.
SO, for a sandwich shop to not serve gays, the owner would somehow have to show that his deeply held religious principles prohibits serving of food to sinners, or that homosexuality is some special class of sin that he is prohibited from feeding. However, as most Christian religions hold that all men are sinners, that argument wouldn't hold water, as he clearly servers other sinners, (lairs, cheats, etc) and probably has served gays in the past, unknowingly. And the government would simply have to argue that it has a compelling interest in equally enforcing title VII, etc.
Also, in 20 years since this law has existed elsewhere, there hasn't been many major cases where it had been used to discriminate against anyone. At least not the type of discrimination people are afraid of. (the biggest such case being Hobby Lobby, and that was an iffy decision)
It has, however, been actually used to allow a Muslim prisoner to keep a 1/2" beard, as required by his religion, against the prison's dress code that requires men be clean shaven.
It has been used to allow native Americans to use peyote (normally illegal) in religious ceremonies, and to wear feathers in head dress (normally illegal). And UDV(a Brazilian spiritual religion) to use a native tea as communion. This tea was confiscated as a drug. This law got it returned.
It has been used to allow Sikh's to wear a kirpan, a ceremonial knife (which is intentionally dull so as not to be dangerous), in federal buildings (such as IRS). The IRS refused even though they allowed employee's to have scissors, box cutters, and letter openers, all of which are more dangerous than a kirpan.
It has been used to allow a native american child to attend school even though his hair wasn't up to Texas school dress code ("Boy's hair shall not touch any part of the ear")
The issue is that this law DOES NOT do what you are arguing against!
First, this law has ALREADY existed for 20 years, both in federal law and in other states. The federal law was signed into law by a democrat, Clinton.
What this law does is stipulate a test to for the courts to use when a government interest conflicts with a personal, or group's religious interests.
For one, it generally cannot be used by publicly traded companies (or at least it shouldn't), as it would be impossible to assert that all of the owners of the company agree on a particular religious view
Secondly, it should not lead to the kind of discrimination people are pandering against, both here and in the leftist media.
As one would have to show that they posses a deeply held religious belief that some law substantially burdens;
And even if a law were to burden a religious person, if the government can show that it has a compelling interest in doing so, and there is no less burdensome means, then the government can still enforce the law on the individual/group.
SO, for a sandwich shop to not serve gays, the owner would somehow have to show that his deeply held religious principles prohibits serving of food to sinners, or that homosexuality is some special class of sin that he is prohibited from feeding. However, as most Christian religions hold that all men are sinners, that argument wouldn't hold water, as he clearly servers other sinners, (lairs, cheats, etc) and probably has served gays in the past, unknowingly. And the government would simply have to argue that it has a compelling interest in equally enforcing title VII, etc.
Also, in 20 years since this law has existed elsewhere, there hasn't been many major cases where it had been used to discriminate against anyone. At least not the type of discrimination people are afraid of. (the biggest such case being Hobby Lobby, and that was an iffy decision)
It has, however, been actually used to allow a Muslim prisoner to keep a 1/2" beard, as required by his religion, against the prison's dress code that requires men be clean shaven.
It has been used to allow native Americans to use peyote (normally illegal) in religious ceremonies, and to wear feathers in head dress (normally illegal). And UDV (a Brazilian spiritual religion) to use a native tea as communion. This tea was confiscated as a drug. This law got it returned.
It has been used to allow Sikh's to wear a kirpan, a ceremonial knife (which is intentionally dull so as not to be dangerous), in federal buildings (such as IRS). The IRS refused even though they allowed employee's to have scissors, box cutters, and letter openers, all of which are more dangerous than a kirpan.
It has been used to allow a native american child to attend school even though his hair wasn't up to Texas school dress code ("Boy's hair shall not touch any part of the ear")
This law differs from the Federal Law and it also differs from the all the other state laws (including Texas). This info is easily found just Google it.
And he's also damaging Apple's reputation in the US. People don't always like excessively preachy companies.
Yep. Americans much prefer to be manipulated silently by shadowy puppet masters spewing propaganda by proxy. It's so hard to look back and forth from puppet to puppeteer on a regular basis, right? Eye strain, neck strain, brain strain. Conscious effort. That kinda thing.
There appear to be some minor differences in the wording as compared to the federal law, such as including the explicit definition of a person to included non-human entities, however, the federal law states "persons" [the legal fiction] as well, without the explicit definition; however, in the Dictionary Act, which would be used to define the word "person" in the federal RFRA, person is defined essentially the same as the Indiana law. It also includes the word likely, which allows this law to be used for injunctions rather than just after-the-fact suits.
Neither of these major differences seems to be all that bad. But I'm not a legal scholar. Perhaps some of the wording should be changed?
The bigger issue is that the government and the state have many times tried to end run around the establishment clause, not by directly forbidding a religion, as that would be unconstitutional, but by passing laws, ordinances, etc. that directly affect certain aspects of peoples exercise of religion.
Should a catholic church be forced to perform a same-sex marriage? or any non-catholic wedding for that matter?
Should native Americans be forced to abandon 1000 year old traditions because the FDA defined peyote as a illegal drug?
Should local courts ban face coverings for security? What about burqas?
ShouldSikhs be allowed to wear a kirpan? Even in federal buildings? Schools?
Should Muslim and Jewish prisoners be forced to eat pork meals? Or shave their beards?
Now, I do not want this law to be used to back all sorts of discrimination especially in the secular world, but I also don't want secular laws to steamroll clearly non-secular religious practices.
I want to live in a country were people of all differing types allowed to be as different a they like, to see people of all religions "getting along" as much as they can; I DO NOT want us to become like the "enlightened" Europeans who banned burqas! (And crosses, and Kipas, and veils, and pretty much everything else)
If we had proper constitutionally minded government and courts, then we wouldn't need laws like this. I would greatly prefer to not need laws like this.
It's a shame when people can't argue the merits of a case without reverting to the "racist bigot" charge. In a free society everyone should at least be able to express their view without persecution providing they don't promote hatred or violence. The first amendment applies to everyone, not just those people who agree with your point of view.
There appear to be some minor differences in the wording as compared to the federal law, such as including the explicit definition of a person to included non-human entities, however, the federal law states "persons" [the legal fiction] as well, without the explicit definition; however, in the Dictionary Act, which would be used to define the word "person" in the federal RFRA, person is defined essentially the same as the Indiana law. It also includes the word likely, which allows this law to be used for injunctions rather than just after-the-fact suits.
Neither of these major differences seems to be all that bad. But I'm not a legal scholar. Perhaps some of the wording should be changed?
The bigger issue is that the government and the state have many times tried to end run around the establishment clause, not by directly forbidding a religion, as that would be unconstitutional, but by passing laws, ordinances, etc. that directly affect certain aspects of peoples exercise of religion.
Should a catholic church be forced to perform a same-sex marriage? or any non-catholic wedding for that matter?
Should native Americans be forced to abandon 1000 year old traditions because the FDA defined peyote as a illegal drug?
Should local courts ban face coverings for security? What about burqas?
ShouldSikhs be allowed to wear a kirpan? Even in federal buildings? Schools?
Should Muslim and Jewish prisoners be forced to eat pork meals? Or shave their beards?
Now, I do not want this law to be used to back all sorts of discrimination especially in the secular world, but I also don't want secular laws to steamroll clearly non-secular religious practices.
I want to live in a country were people of all differing types allowed to be as different a they like, to see people of all religions "getting along" as much as they can; I DO NOT want us to become like the "enlightened" Europeans who banned burqas! (And crosses, and Kipas, and veils, and pretty much everything else)
If we had proper constitutionally minded government and courts, then we wouldn't need laws like this. I would greatly prefer to not need laws like this.
I hope your post is intended as parody, because otherwise it makes no sense and is grossly insincere.
I agree with this statement of yours however: "… I'm not a legal scholar."
You have done an excellent job establishing that fact.
Comments
What a freaking moron!! Arrogance and idiocy are a bad combination. Culture and ethics existed long before this book of incoherent and self-contradictory stories was written. Judeo-Christian mythology is derivative and unoriginal. Only those raised in Christian cults think otherwise.
The word "unoriginal" comes up in this thread a lot. Guess I don't understand what an *original* religion/faith is. Honest question.
Edit: Nevermind. Lost sight of this thread.
Carly Fiorina... Now there's someone with credibility!
Let me guess, you're a white, heterosexual, Christian man? Everything looks simple when you're in the power position. I agree with the spirit of your post on many levels. But I also think you're quite naive. What you're suggesting is a return to "whites only" establishments with the wildly optimistic belief that the "market" will punish the bigots. Businesses exist to serve the public good as much as to provide a livelihood for the owners and employees. If you don't want to serve certain types of people in your business, then I suggest not getting into business in the first place.
I'll be kind and answer your question, Yes. Now would you care to answer any of the valid questions that I asked of you but you simply ignored in your response? Thanks!
Why assume the poster was automatically some kind of racist?
I didn't assume that. I simply said that taking a let the market decide approach opens the door to, for starters, "whites only" establishments.
I don't really feel the need to answer your post, question by question. I think my reply was pretty clear. I agree with the spirit of your post. But I think it's naive. Yes, I'm sure no one wants his or her wedding cake baked by someone who didn't want to do the job. Agreed. And in that context, your position seems harmless enough. But what if we're talking about a doctor who refuses to see black patients or a pharmacist who refuses to provide HIV drugs. You are flat out wrong to assume that everyone can easily take his or her business elsewhere. The poor don't have that luxury.
The question you still have refused to answer is "Do you think all Christians are bigots?" It seemed as though you were imply that with your original post and it seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to ask clarification on. I'm trying not to read anything into your avoidance of the reasonable, but you're making it really difficult.
Oh, sorry, I should have realized you were stuck on that question. No, I don't think all Christians are bigots, but I think the ones championing these bull**** "religious freedom" laws from the comfort of their legally protected position in society are total bigots. And hypocrites. And generally all around worthless meat sacks.
I could also read a lot into your fixation with me answering a pointless question over you ignoring everything I've written in my previous two replies because you're so fixated on whether or not I think all Christians are bigots. You've only further reinforced my general opinion about Christians though, whether I read anything into your fixation or not.
Said by SpamSandwich in reply to: "Originally Posted by Z8O1
So you still think that "owners of a privately-owned small business" can put up a sign saying "we do not serve or sell to black people, non-Christians, or non-heterosexuals? Are you serious?
Spam, like Rip Van Winkle, you must have just woken up from a long sleep:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/WhiteTradeOnlyLancasterOhio.jpg
"On July 2, 1964, Johnson signed the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964.[24][25] It invoked the commerce clause[24] to outlaw discrimination in public accommodations (privately owned restaurants, hotels, and stores, and in private schools and workplaces). This use of the commerce clause was upheld in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States 379 US 241 (1964).[26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws#Courts
If you were not yet born in 1964, then I would at least assume you learned the law of the land in grade school or high school?
Or are you just living in a fantasy world of your own making?
I think that it is absolutely fascinating that you, SpamSandwich, though busy as a bee posting numerous "personal opinion" comments since the above post quoting the law of the land as settled way back in 1964:
"On July 2, 1964, Johnson signed the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964.[24][25] It invoked the commerce clause[24] to outlaw discrimination in public accommodations (privately owned restaurants, hotels, and stores, and in private schools and workplaces). This use of the commerce clause was upheld in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States 379 US 241 (1964).[26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws#Courts
have totally failed to acknowledge that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 invoked the commerce clause to outlaw discrimination in public accommodations (privately owned restaurants, hotels, and stores, and in private schools and workplaces). and that the Courts have been upholding and applying this law since 1964.
Is that how you deal with the laws in this country that you don't like? You just pretend that they don't exist? And just keep repeating your arguments?
The issue is that this law DOES NOT do what you are arguing against!
First, this law has ALREADY existed for 20 years, both in federal law and in other states. The federal law was signed into law by a democrat, Clinton.
What this law does is stipulate a test to for the courts to use when a government interest conflicts with a personal, or group's religious interests.
For one, it generally cannot be used by publicly traded companies (or at least it shouldn't), as it would be impossible to assert that all of the owners of the company agree on a particular religious view
Secondly, it should not lead to the kind of discrimination people are pandering against, both here and in the leftist media.
As one would have to show that they posses a deeply held religious belief that some law substantially burdens;
And even if a law were to burden a religious person, if the government can show that it has a compelling interest in doing so, and there is no less burdensome means, then the government can still enforce the law on the individual/group.
SO, for a sandwich shop to not serve gays, the owner would somehow have to show that his deeply held religious principles prohibits serving of food to sinners, or that homosexuality is some special class of sin that he is prohibited from feeding. However, as most Christian religions hold that all men are sinners, that argument wouldn't hold water, as he clearly servers other sinners, (lairs, cheats, etc) and probably has served gays in the past, unknowingly. And the government would simply have to argue that it has a compelling interest in equally enforcing title VII, etc.
Also, in 20 years since this law has existed elsewhere, there hasn't been many major cases where it had been used to discriminate against anyone. At least not the type of discrimination people are afraid of. (the biggest such case being Hobby Lobby, and that was an iffy decision)
It has, however, been actually used to allow a Muslim prisoner to keep a 1/2" beard, as required by his religion, against the prison's dress code that requires men be clean shaven.
It has been used to allow native Americans to use peyote (normally illegal) in religious ceremonies, and to wear feathers in head dress (normally illegal). And UDV (a Brazilian spiritual religion) to use a native tea as communion. This tea was confiscated as a drug. This law got it returned.
It has been used to allow Sikh's to wear a kirpan, a ceremonial knife (which is intentionally dull so as not to be dangerous), in federal buildings (such as IRS). The IRS refused even though they allowed employee's to have scissors, box cutters, and letter openers, all of which are more dangerous than a kirpan.
It has been used to allow a native american child to attend school even though his hair wasn't up to Texas school dress code ("Boy's hair shall not touch any part of the ear")
The issue is that this law DOES NOT do what you are arguing against!
First, this law has ALREADY existed for 20 years, both in federal law and in other states. The federal law was signed into law by a democrat, Clinton.
What this law does is stipulate a test to for the courts to use when a government interest conflicts with a personal, or group's religious interests.
If you had actually read the Federal Law and Indiana's new law and compared them side-by-side, you would know that the above assertion is a fable and a myth. The only thing these two laws have in common is their title.
In case you have not already noticed, nearly all bills introduced and voted into law by Republican majorities are falsely named and generally do the opposite of what their title states.
Judging by what you have asserted, that strategy seems to be working quite well for them.
Also, try not to get all your news from the far right...
The issue is that this law DOES NOT do what you are arguing against!
First, this law has ALREADY existed for 20 years, both in federal law and in other states. The federal law was signed into law by a democrat, Clinton.
What this law does is stipulate a test to for the courts to use when a government interest conflicts with a personal, or group's religious interests.
For one, it generally cannot be used by publicly traded companies (or at least it shouldn't), as it would be impossible to assert that all of the owners of the company agree on a particular religious view
Secondly, it should not lead to the kind of discrimination people are pandering against, both here and in the leftist media.
As one would have to show that they posses a deeply held religious belief that some law substantially burdens;
And even if a law were to burden a religious person, if the government can show that it has a compelling interest in doing so, and there is no less burdensome means, then the government can still enforce the law on the individual/group.
SO, for a sandwich shop to not serve gays, the owner would somehow have to show that his deeply held religious principles prohibits serving of food to sinners, or that homosexuality is some special class of sin that he is prohibited from feeding. However, as most Christian religions hold that all men are sinners, that argument wouldn't hold water, as he clearly servers other sinners, (lairs, cheats, etc) and probably has served gays in the past, unknowingly. And the government would simply have to argue that it has a compelling interest in equally enforcing title VII, etc.
Also, in 20 years since this law has existed elsewhere, there hasn't been many major cases where it had been used to discriminate against anyone. At least not the type of discrimination people are afraid of. (the biggest such case being Hobby Lobby, and that was an iffy decision)
It has, however, been actually used to allow a Muslim prisoner to keep a 1/2" beard, as required by his religion, against the prison's dress code that requires men be clean shaven.
It has been used to allow native Americans to use peyote (normally illegal) in religious ceremonies, and to wear feathers in head dress (normally illegal). And UDV (a Brazilian spiritual religion) to use a native tea as communion. This tea was confiscated as a drug. This law got it returned.
It has been used to allow Sikh's to wear a kirpan, a ceremonial knife (which is intentionally dull so as not to be dangerous), in federal buildings (such as IRS). The IRS refused even though they allowed employee's to have scissors, box cutters, and letter openers, all of which are more dangerous than a kirpan.
It has been used to allow a native american child to attend school even though his hair wasn't up to Texas school dress code ("Boy's hair shall not touch any part of the ear")
This law differs from the Federal Law and it also differs from the all the other state laws (including Texas). This info is easily found just Google it.
And he's also damaging Apple's reputation in the US. People don't always like excessively preachy companies.
Yep. Americans much prefer to be manipulated silently by shadowy puppet masters spewing propaganda by proxy. It's so hard to look back and forth from puppet to puppeteer on a regular basis, right? Eye strain, neck strain, brain strain. Conscious effort. That kinda thing.
There appear to be some minor differences in the wording as compared to the federal law, such as including the explicit definition of a person to included non-human entities, however, the federal law states "persons" [the legal fiction] as well, without the explicit definition; however, in the Dictionary Act, which would be used to define the word "person" in the federal RFRA, person is defined essentially the same as the Indiana law. It also includes the word likely, which allows this law to be used for injunctions rather than just after-the-fact suits.
Neither of these major differences seems to be all that bad. But I'm not a legal scholar. Perhaps some of the wording should be changed?
The bigger issue is that the government and the state have many times tried to end run around the establishment clause, not by directly forbidding a religion, as that would be unconstitutional, but by passing laws, ordinances, etc. that directly affect certain aspects of peoples exercise of religion.
Should a catholic church be forced to perform a same-sex marriage? or any non-catholic wedding for that matter?
Should native Americans be forced to abandon 1000 year old traditions because the FDA defined peyote as a illegal drug?
Should local courts ban face coverings for security? What about burqas?
Should Sikhs be allowed to wear a kirpan? Even in federal buildings? Schools?
Should Muslim and Jewish prisoners be forced to eat pork meals? Or shave their beards?
Now, I do not want this law to be used to back all sorts of discrimination especially in the secular world, but I also don't want secular laws to steamroll clearly non-secular religious practices.
I want to live in a country were people of all differing types allowed to be as different a they like, to see people of all religions "getting along" as much as they can; I DO NOT want us to become like the "enlightened" Europeans who banned burqas! (And crosses, and Kipas, and veils, and pretty much everything else)
If we had proper constitutionally minded government and courts, then we wouldn't need laws like this. I would greatly prefer to not need laws like this.
It's a shame when people can't argue the merits of a case without reverting to the "racist bigot" charge. In a free society everyone should at least be able to express their view without persecution providing they don't promote hatred or violence. The first amendment applies to everyone, not just those people who agree with your point of view.
There appear to be some minor differences in the wording as compared to the federal law, such as including the explicit definition of a person to included non-human entities, however, the federal law states "persons" [the legal fiction] as well, without the explicit definition; however, in the Dictionary Act, which would be used to define the word "person" in the federal RFRA, person is defined essentially the same as the Indiana law. It also includes the word likely, which allows this law to be used for injunctions rather than just after-the-fact suits.
Neither of these major differences seems to be all that bad. But I'm not a legal scholar. Perhaps some of the wording should be changed?
The bigger issue is that the government and the state have many times tried to end run around the establishment clause, not by directly forbidding a religion, as that would be unconstitutional, but by passing laws, ordinances, etc. that directly affect certain aspects of peoples exercise of religion.
Should a catholic church be forced to perform a same-sex marriage? or any non-catholic wedding for that matter?
Should native Americans be forced to abandon 1000 year old traditions because the FDA defined peyote as a illegal drug?
Should local courts ban face coverings for security? What about burqas?
Should Sikhs be allowed to wear a kirpan? Even in federal buildings? Schools?
Should Muslim and Jewish prisoners be forced to eat pork meals? Or shave their beards?
Now, I do not want this law to be used to back all sorts of discrimination especially in the secular world, but I also don't want secular laws to steamroll clearly non-secular religious practices.
I want to live in a country were people of all differing types allowed to be as different a they like, to see people of all religions "getting along" as much as they can; I DO NOT want us to become like the "enlightened" Europeans who banned burqas! (And crosses, and Kipas, and veils, and pretty much everything else)
If we had proper constitutionally minded government and courts, then we wouldn't need laws like this. I would greatly prefer to not need laws like this.
I hope your post is intended as parody, because otherwise it makes no sense and is grossly insincere.
I agree with this statement of yours however: "… I'm not a legal scholar."
You have done an excellent job establishing that fact.
You may think you are being clever with "arguments" like these:
Should a catholic church be forced to perform a same-sex marriage? or any non-catholic wedding for that matter?
Should native Americans be forced to abandon 1000 year old traditions because the FDA defined peyote as a illegal drug?
Should local courts ban face coverings for security? What about burqas?
Should Sikhs be allowed to wear a kirpan? Even in federal buildings? Schools?
Should Muslim and Jewish prisoners be forced to eat pork meals? Or shave their beards?
But this is an ancient and discredited debating "technique" - see e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-straw-man-argument.htm