Page 134 of 320 FirstFirst ... 3484124132133134135136144184234 ... LastLast
Results 1,331 to 1,340 of 3196

Thread: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

  1. #1331
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra View Post
    yeh, that's an economical and feasible solution to the problem at hand all right.
    Yes, because it's so more realistic that there is one bakery within 500 miles of you.

  2. #1332
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,169

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra View Post
    yeh, that's an economical and feasible solution to the problem at hand all right.
    No, it simply makes light of your "one cake shop in 500 miles" argument. The biggest problem in that scenario is that you've got a single cake shop serving one or more entire states. Sounds like an economic opportunity to me.

  3. #1333
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Last Seen
    02-08-17 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,639

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Yes, because it's so more realistic that there is one bakery within 500 miles of you.
    never been to Alaska, huh?

  4. #1334
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by Blemonds View Post
    Hyperbole aside, word of mouth will produce that same result
    Not as quickly and not as universally. And if their convictions are so solid, there should be no issue with them advertising them.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  5. #1335
    Professor
    JoeTrumps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Memphis
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,565

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra View Post
    and what would you do if that was the only 1 cake shop within 500 miles of you? or if all cake shops were owned and run by religious opponents of your life?
    etc
    I'd move. but your talking about a huge "what if" that the vast majority of people wouldn't have to deal with. that's not a realistic argument for the issue itself

  6. #1336
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra View Post
    never been to Alaska, huh?
    Alaska has multiple bakeries. According to the yellow pages website Anchorage alone has thirty bakeries.

  7. #1337
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Last Seen
    02-08-17 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,639

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Alaska has multiple bakeries. According to the yellow pages website Anchorage alone has thirty bakeries.

    are all residents of alaska serviced by more than 1 within 500 miles?

  8. #1338
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra View Post
    are all residents of alaska serviced by more than 1 within 500 miles?
    Who are you talking about exactly? Go to the yellow pages website and go through the pages of bakeries in Alaska. There is no doubt there is an absolute **** ton of bakeries in Alaska.

  9. #1339
    Professor
    JoeTrumps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Memphis
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,565

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra View Post
    are all residents of alaska serviced by more than 1 within 500 miles?
    ok. so if there is a clause in the indiana law that if you are the ONLY bakery in 500 miles you can't descriminate, would you be ok with the law then?

  10. #1340
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,314

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by SenorXm/Sirius View Post
    ...several states have copied the federal act or have adopted similar legislation. ...Upon my quick scan, Indiana’s version of the bill most resembles a similar law passed in Texas in 1999 but even that bill contains significant limitations that Indiana’s does not.

    What is clear is that Indiana has not copied the federal legislation or those passed by other states, but has instead added more expansive language as seen below. The IRFRA adds several clauses which rightly give pause to the endless possibilities of using religion and religious freedom as a sword and a shield.
    https://inadvancesheet.wordpress.com...s-controversy/
    This citation confirms (unintentionally) my prior points - that the Indiana law is substantively like other RFRA's, including that of the federal government AND that the opposition is being hysterical and intolerant. The author, Matt Anderson, is an acknowledged supporter of gay marriage AND opponent of RFRA, but he claims he opposes it because it is "so vague and just a poorly written law", and makes the ludicrous claim that it does not even resemble its federal counterpart.

    He makes these claims on the basis of what he says is "a quick scan" of another summary of other laws and cases provided by another website. Let's look at his Evelyn Wood trained reading skills:

    First, if you review his source links it is true that Indiana has not (literally) copied word for word the federal legislation or (literally copied) those passed by other states". In fact NO STATE is a literal copy of each other or the federal RFRA. Texas is worded a little differently than New Mexico, New Mexico a little differently from Indiana, and Indiana a little differently than South Carolina. BUT all RFRA states and the federal RFRA convey a(n) (inadequate) protection the same religious protection, and the same legal requirements of a "compelling State interest", which is what the federal law requires.

    So while Mr. Anderson anguishes over "the lack of any restrictive language" and in the failure of Indiana law to define "religion" (which he says invites a broad meaning) he is oblivious to the fact that other states don't define "religion" and most do not HAVE a clause that bothers to restrict the meaning of "religious exercise". But for three or four other States, almost everyone else either leaves meanings wide open to expansive readings OR vaguely say that the terms should mean whatever their particular State Constitution must mean by "the exercise of religion" and the US Constitution (see, for example Arkansas, Oklahoma, etc.). In fact 11 States of the 31 states with RFRA like protections in case law just leave it up to their own particular court case law history to figure it out. HOW much more open to expansive meaning can one get?

    Finally, his third complaint is that "any action...may fall under the 'exercise of religion' (and) may or not be compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.' In other words, even if the belief is at the fringe of what a religion may or may not hold true, it falls under this definition of exercising one’s religion."

    But contrary to his complaint, the few states that do explicitly define religious exercise do so very much like Indiana. For example:

    Indiana: Section 5, which reads: “As used in this chapter, ‘exercise of religion’ includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” (Emphasis added.)

    Arizona: "Exercise of religion" means the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief"

    New Mexico: "A. "free exercise of religion" means an act or a refusal to act that is substantially motivated by religious belief whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief;..."

    Texas: "(a) In this chapter: (1) "Free exercise of religion" means an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief. In determining whether an act or refusal to act is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief under this chapter, it is not necessary to determine that
    the act or refusal to act is motivated by a central part or central requirement of the person's sincere religious belief."

    While I would welcome a law that truly defends religious (and other) liberties from oppression by "anti-discrimination" laws, this one really ain't it. But at least the pedantic hysterical opposition conveys just how intolerant they are to even a tiny wisp of religious liberty by a lone baker - that itself is instructive.

    .

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •